Nurse quits job to avoid distributing "morning-after" pills - page 3
Nurse quits job to avoid distributing "morning-after" pills By BOB JOHNSON Associated Press Writer Nine state health department nurses have resigned at least partly over concerns about the... Read More
Jul 3, '04The MD should be giving a pregnancy test before he gives you that pill. If you are pregnant, you CANNOT take the pill. It only works if you aren't pregnant... it prevents you from ovulating. It's just a hi-dose birth control pill. And yes, the condom broke... things happen... it's a lot safer and a better choice than alternatives.
I'm glad the nurse quit if she didn't think using the pill was right or moral. Nobody should work in a place they don't feel comfortable. However, I would be curious to know if she was comfortable prescribing birth control pills at all.
Jul 4, '04Quote from Nurse RatchedThis would be my concern..the STD's. If we make it so easy to make the choice of being irresponsible, how are they supposed to avoid STD's??? There is no "morning after pill" for HIV, herpes, etc. I agree that these pills should never be made available OTC..you get neither an exam nor any education doing it that way. All it would do is make it easier to have more and more unprotected sex and spread sexually transmitted diseases, let alone problems in females who should not take them for medical reasons.I can understand your frustration. I can't believe there is a facility that does not require an annual exam to receive pills on an ongoing basis. Cervical cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer when caught early, as the pap smear helps to do.
And while I understand the notion that no one wants to see a woman get pregnant who's obviously barely able to manage her own needs, is no one concerned about the possible side effects of the pills? We have to educate on the warning signs, encourage not to smoke, and most importantly, document that the patient received and understood this information so if they drop over of a clot we're less likely to get our tails sued off.
I also wonder about the incidence of treatable STD's in a population like this.
There is a reason pills are by prescription. If there are just handed out like that, they may as well be OTC.
Jul 4, '04I think there is a great deal of misinformation out there about emergency contraception. People don't bother doing the research on it and make moral judgments based on fallacies. One of my best friends, for example, was adamant that it was immoral (and she's been taking the pill for years), until she found out that the mechanism of action is basically the same.
My boyfriend is a pharmacist, and before he met me, he refused to dispense it. He always made sure that there was another pharmacist who dispensed it, but nonetheless, I found it repugnant. His primary argument was that the patients receiving it were irresponsible. I asked him what was more irresponsible - taking the initiative to go and get an Rx for ec or waiting, doing nothing, and then getting an abortion? Or having a kid that the patient could neither afford nor care for? And I reminded him that, as I said before, the mechanism of action is the same - both ec and the pill typically prevent ovulation. In a small percentage of the time, they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. He never refused to dispense the pill, so why ec? He dispenses it now, and he has actually become a bit of an advocate for it (never would have expected that).
I am pro-choice. I do not have moral objections to ec or to abortion. There was a time when I was not pro-choice. But even then, I found it much more morally acceptable to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg (and that's the worst case scenario with ec) than to abort a developing fetus. So I don't understand all the religous fanatics who claim to love children and respect life - but try to get ec banned just so the women who would be utilizing it can go on to get abortions. It makes no sense. I can understand not participating in something I find morally objectionable, but ultimately, doesn't someone claim some element of moral responsibility if she prevents a woman from getting ec? I mean, I'd rather know that I helped prevent a pregnancy than know that I helped contribute to a child being born who was then abused and neglected. In my opinion, the problem with a lot of the people who oppose ec and abortion (I know, I'm generalizing, sorry) is that 1. they don't think ahead - they think as far as "No! You will not get an abortion OR take ec!" but then they're voting for people who will cut childcare spending, cut the welfare budgets, and cut education and outreach programs, and they refuse to address the underlying issues that lead to unprotected sex (low self esteem, a culture that is hostile to our girls, boys not being taught to accept responsibility)2. they aren't realistic AT ALL - they think that once they are successful at passing laws that impose their beliefs on the rest of the country that everyone will suddenly conform and behave as they'd like them to - not going to happen, as history has demonstrated. I'll throw a third in - they lack empathy.
I have a very good friend - we grew up together and she was actually my step-sister at one point - who is incredible. She grew up in hell, her dad shot himself, her mom abused her, etc. but she thrived nonetheless. She got straight A's, graduated with honors, went to college on a full academic scholarship. She was active in her church, went on missions to inner city LA to help the homeless, worked in food banks, soup kitchens, rescued stray dogs...this girl is a saint. She was a virgin. Finally, after she graduated, she ended up dating a guy she'd been friends with for years. They had been together for about a year when I got a call in the middle of the night. She had unprotected sex with him. Since she never believed she would have sex before she was married, she wasn't on bc. She asked me for help, and I made sure she had access to ec. I was not about to see all her hard work go out the window because of one mistake that lasted about 10 minutes. And that's the thing - everyone who gets ec has a story behind it. And it's usually much more complicated than anyone would like to believe.
Life happens - condoms break, girls get raped, and yes, people make irresponsible decisions. It has always been that way, and it always will. We can try our best to reduce the amount of people who end up making poor choices, yes, but ultimately, a lot of people will end up doing damage control after the fact. And I'm glad that there is another, healthier, less invasive option available for that purpose. The abortion rate has declined dramatically since ec was made available. And I think it's an empowering option - you make a mistake, you cry, you think about what has happened, and then you do something about it. You take action. You go to the doctor, you get an rx, and you go on. And maybe you realize that you have more options than you think, so you get on bc. Or you use condoms. I think that, if anything, having ec available is good for girls - anything that gives them power and choice is and will raise self esteem.
I think it's good the nurse quit. She obviously couldn't do her job there, so it was better for everyone involved. I've known many pharmacists that did not agree with ec, but they dispensed it anyway - because they knew that if they couldn't perform their job, they needed to work in a setting that didn't require that of them. End of story.
Jul 4, '04I think the biggest issue with the morning after pill is the fact that if it is made readily accessible will these girls bother with any other form of BC (to prevent disease, etc.) AND will they just "give in" and say yes when they may have said no in the past?
Jul 4, '04My humble summary of nursing is that we all need to be nonjudgmental. While I don't LIKE to take the emergency contraception calls, I am in nursing to help people. I do not condone or support their actions, however, I just try to help them with what they need. It's hard though. :stone
Jul 4, '04I agree... I don't think it should be made over the counter. I believe that women should get exams before being given any kind of birth control pill. But the morning after pill... is just that... it's only birth control. It doesn't abort anything.
Jul 4, '04Quote from BeachNurseThe STD's are my main concerned. It's wierd that women will call up the facility, worried that they might be pregnant, and yet, not one of them mentions STD's.This would be my concern..the STD's. If we make it so easy to make the choice of being irresponsible, how are they supposed to avoid STD's??? There is no "morning after pill" for HIV, herpes, etc. I agree that these pills should never be made available OTC..you get neither an exam nor any education doing it that way. All it would do is make it easier to have more and more unprotected sex and spread sexually transmitted diseases, let alone problems in females who should not take them for medical reasons.
I have told countless women that pregnancy is a problem that can be fixed, but the diseases such as HIV, HEP C, etc., can be fatal--that's the part I worry about for these women.
Aug 3, '04Quote from smkoepkeBarr Laboratories just applied to have it go over the counter, with an age restriction for those under 16. This means that anyone 16 and over can buy it over the counter, but anyone under 16 will need to have a prescription from a provider or see a pharmacist (in CA and NM only).slightly off-topic but isn't one of the morning after pills being released as OTC soon? I thought i heard this a couple of months back and there was some controversy surrounding the saftey of women (and girls) using this more often than they should. Does anyone know anything about this? Maybe I'll try to do a google search a little later.
Aug 3, '04Quote from mattsmom81ECPs work in 3 ways: to prevent ovulation; if that has already happened to prevent fertilization; if that has already happened to prevent implantation.I
I'm confused...BCP prevent ovulation, but 'morning after' pills must do more than just that...because they're taken after the deed. So..those of you who administer it: does it kill the egg or cause sloughing of the endometrium or what????? I haven't had to deal with it so I haven't edumacated myself yet.
ECPs in no way have any teratogenic effects. They will NOT harm a pregnancy in any way. For years women have been accidentally taken their birth control pills weeks or months into pregnancy. The hormones in these pills are the SAME HORMONES. She will be FINE. And so will the baby.
Aug 4, '04Quote from CNM2BSorry, but that doesn't fly. Someone's convictions that are so weak that they just "give in" instead of saying no. These people are looking for a reason to give in...it is called making excuses and trying to place the blame on a drug rather than their own weakness. Obviously, they have no intention of using condoms (the only BC that may reduce STDs) but we may as well limit the damage. If a male can talk them into sex with a "You can just get EC Baby", are they likely to hold out for a condom?I think the biggest issue with the morning after pill is the fact that if it is made readily accessible will these girls bother with any other form of BC (to prevent disease, etc.) AND will they just "give in" and say yes when they may have said no in the past?
And I note that per usual for any thread on undesired pregnancy, the vast amount of the reprobation/responsibility is directed at girls/women. There are men involved in these issues. Why don't we require the male involved in the "oops" or "the condom broke" to come in at the same time as the woman, subject him to the usual tests for STDs, and have both of them get treatment when the EC is distributed? It helps with the STD issue, and if the males get subjected to the same inconvenience as the women (especially over and over) it may motivate them to use that form of BC that does protect against STDs. If they will not come to the clinic, they will have a letter sent to their home.
But then that inconveniences men....much in the way that women have been inconvenienced on this subject for decades.
Aug 18, '04I think there seems to be some confusion as to the reason behind nurses refusing to participate in abortions or handing out morning-after pills. I feel that I can speak for many nurses in this situation in saying that it has nothing to do with being judgemental or trying to enforce a moral code. It is about the effect it would have on me because of my beliefs, not on the patient.
Aug 18, '04Quote from rnmi2004That's strange, because all through school, and orientation, we learned that the patient is top priority, and that my beliefs are personal and do not belong at the work place.It is about the effect it would have on me because of my beliefs, not on the patient.
Aug 18, '04OT....sorta
I wish people would keep their beliefs to themselves. I had to wade through a mob of right to lifers yesterday in order to visit my critically ill sister in the hospital.
You have a right to your views but creating bedlam for others who have catastrophes occurring in their families is very inconsiderate and rude.