Christian-run NHS surgery rebuked for not supplying ECPs

Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

09 May 2013, 10:29 am

RU-486 and the morning after pill (Plan B) are two different pills.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

09 May 2013, 10:45 am

YippySkippy wrote:
RU-486 and the morning after pill (Plan B) are two different pills.


Are they?

Ok

I'm confused as to exactly how the morning after pill works now

If it stops/slows ovulation, what if you'd already ovulated and the sperm had
fertilsed the egg before you took it?

I thought the morning after pill made an already-fertilised egg non-viable



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

09 May 2013, 11:20 am

PsychoSarah wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think they're silly to object to a woman making sure here body rejects a small growing ball of cells. However, if they genuinely have religious concerns on the matter, they should be allowed to pass, as long as they help people find someone who will prescribe the drug. That seems to be the case here.


I hate when people think this. The morning after pill is a contraceptive, thus it prevents conception. It would not cause the body to reject a growing ball of cells. It would prevent the sperm from working. This is a common misconception about conception. This idea makes people think of it as "an abortion pill", which it is not.
Ok, I was badly informed. I had been told the morning after pill disrupted the lining of the uterus, from checking NHS Direct that doesn't seem to be the case.

All the same, many religious people object to contraception.

YippySkippy wrote:
The doctor is a government employee, and the gov't. makes the laws, and the law says the pill is legal....

The government says the morning after pill is legal. The government does not say that medical professionals HAVE to prescribe any drug.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 May 2013, 12:22 pm

Similar to the thread on Catholic midwives refusing to assist in abortions, my view depends very much on the nature of the relationship between the physicians and the NHS.

As private professionals, they are free to say, "I don't deal with this type of concern, I suggest you speak to my colleague, Dr. X." But if they are public servants, that discretion is subsumed into their duty to their employer.


_________________
--James


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 May 2013, 7:24 pm

nessa238 wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
RU-486 and the morning after pill (Plan B) are two different pills.


Are they?

Ok

I'm confused as to exactly how the morning after pill works now

If it stops/slows ovulation, what if you'd already ovulated and the sperm had
fertilsed the egg before you took it?

I thought the morning after pill made an already-fertilised egg non-viable

They're totally different. The morning-after pill prevents you from ovulating; RU-486 causes a medical abortion when you're already several weeks pregnant.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

09 May 2013, 7:33 pm

nessa238 wrote:
I'd be happy to ban people from using their religion as justification for refusing to prescribe the pill as long as people were also banned from wearing burkhas or any other religious paraphenalia in public, sharia courts and arranged marriages were banned and people were automatically deported for honour killings. All these things really offend me. This is never going to happen in a million years in this country so I suggest people deal with the non prescribing of the pills.


Honor killings are ok in your country? I'd think a prison sentence would be the better answer for that than deportation. I think arranged marriage should be ok as long as both parties agree with it. When we lived in Bham I had quite a few friends from India and a few of them got married or engaged during the time I knew them. All but one of those were arranged. I freaked out the first time I found out about that, and asked who in their right mind would agree to it. It was explained to me that they believed their parents knew them better than anyone so it was logical that their parents should pick their spouse. Now personally, I cannot see that at all. I think love should have everything to do with marriage, but that's actually a recent concept. I do not think I would or could ever be ok with being in an arranged marriage, but to people who grew up with the idea, it's a good idea. So, I don't think it should be outlawed if both parties consent to it, but I think it should be true consent with the person consenting to a third party who isn't involved and will not disclose who didn't consent but will refuse to grant the marriage.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

10 May 2013, 7:38 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I'd be happy to ban people from using their religion as justification for refusing to prescribe the pill as long as people were also banned from wearing burkhas or any other religious paraphenalia in public, sharia courts and arranged marriages were banned and people were automatically deported for honour killings. All these things really offend me. This is never going to happen in a million years in this country so I suggest people deal with the non prescribing of the pills.


Honor killings are ok in your country? I'd think a prison sentence would be the better answer for that than deportation. I think arranged marriage should be ok as long as both parties agree with it. When we lived in Bham I had quite a few friends from India and a few of them got married or engaged during the time I knew them. All but one of those were arranged. I freaked out the first time I found out about that, and asked who in their right mind would agree to it. It was explained to me that they believed their parents knew them better than anyone so it was logical that their parents should pick their spouse. Now personally, I cannot see that at all. I think love should have everything to do with marriage, but that's actually a recent concept. I do not think I would or could ever be ok with being in an arranged marriage, but to people who grew up with the idea, it's a good idea. So, I don't think it should be outlawed if both parties consent to it, but I think it should be true consent with the person consenting to a third party who isn't involved and will not disclose who didn't consent but will refuse to grant the marriage.


What makes you think Honour killings are 'ok' in my country? (the UK) If I want people who do them to be deported it indicates
I find them abhorrent and that people who do them have no place living in a civilised society such as we try to have in the UK. No they are not ok, except apparently amongst some people in some communities in the UK. They do get a prison sentence but deportation would send a stronger message about it ie do not bring your barbaric practices to our country.
I don't like the idea of arranged marriage either. Perhaps people who want to engage in it should just do it in their countries of origin and be prepared to adapt to our way of doing things if they want to live in our country. I wouldn't ban it but a lt of abuse still goes on in the name of it such as young girls being taken to places like Pakistan and married off to people (often cousins) over there against their will.