OT: The new Pope and Canada.

It's irrelevant since doctors know, and prescribe, and have done for many years now, a combo of two medications which amount to the same process.

The advantage is that nobody knows, nor can they barrack the women who need these pills and try to inflict their views on other women. They had been vandalizing the plants that they thought would make the original "Morning After Pill" so Health Canada was dragging it's heels in that regard. In the meantime, the rest was history.

He seems like a man who might at least put the boot in where child abusers are concerned. Hopefully.

Pat P

Highly unlikely, it's business as usual I expect.

It will be kept behind the counter and all women have to do now is ask their pharmacist. So no waiting for a doctors appointment. ruby

He's already stated the the priestly pedophiles are just a carefully organized campaign to smear the name of the church by non catholics. ???? I'm not sure how that works, but whatever.

Where on earth did you see that, Theresa? What a terrible shame if that`s what he said. I think that there have been enough substantiated cases coming to the fore to prove him wrong. I doubt if THAT much incorrect evidence could be fabricated.

Pat P

"Lucretia Borgia" wrote.

Unfortunately, there have been instances in smaller centres where a pharmacist will refuse to dispense the morning after pill for religous reasons. Fair enough for the pharmacist, but very hard on the women who must then travel to another town to get them. Especially difficult if you are, say, a highschool student. Dawne

Good and about time too.

They allowed Cardinal Law to take a mass. He's just hiding out in the Vatican with the blessing of the church.

Yes, when you say that, I remember the case out west. I have a real problem with one person trying to force their views on another.

That cuts both ways though - how about the pharmacist being forced to sell smething to someone when it`s against HIS principles?

Pat P

Aha! Caught you! If I remember correctly, it was a few years ago, it was a woman. Dawne will be able to say, but again, as I remember it this pharmacist did not want to keep them in the pharmacy, whether she did the prescriptions or not. It was a few years ago, and as far distant as Felixstowe is to me, so we will await what Dawne says, my memory could be quite wrong.

Oh well, as long as they DO have that right. Then again (being Devil`s advocate again) maybe if they assume the responsibilities of being a pharmacist they shouldn`t be able to refuse to dispense anything that has been prescribed. You know what I am for seeing every side to a question! LOL!

My bloody knees are still hurting! I have decided to give up vacuuming - it`s too darned dangerous!

Pat P

There's been a lot of discussion about this recently in our country. I've heard several programs on the radio about it. Both pro and con either way you look at this.

In my opinion, a pharmacist knows they'll be facing this prior to entering the field. So, maybe they ought to choose another career?

On the other hand, there are plenty of religious hospitals that won't treat some situations (abortion). Why are they free to practise their moral beliefs and not pharmacists.

Huge ethical questions that aren't resolved neatly. :-) If you live in a metropolitan area, the patient has other options. That's not so true in vast areas of our country. It can create a real crisis for some patients. Perhaps doctors should carry supplies of these types of medicines and avoid pharmacies altogether? I don't know.

Dianne

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

Exactly. Refusing to sell a woman birth control unless she's married or refusing to dispense ADHD medicine because you think the kid just needs a little discipline violate the the pharmacist code of ethics (specifically that of privacy), in my opinion. If you aren't willing to treat your

Because they are relgious hospitals, paid for in large part money raised by the church. I'd say there is no reasonable expectation of walking into a Catholic hopsital and expecting to be able to get an elective abortion, but there is a reasonable expectation of being able to walk into the corner pharmacy to get your birth control pills without being grilled by the pharmacist.

From what I've read about this practice, most pharmacies will allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription, but they are required to hand off the prescription to someone else to fill without question. I believe the case that brought this issue to light was one where the pharmacist refused to return the woman's prescription to her to allow her to get it filled elsewhere.

K ( snipped-for-privacy@nothere.com) writes:

I would like to expand this discussion a little. It seems to me that Roman Catholics in North America and Europe are starting to "cherry pick" their faith; that is they are selecting parts of the dogma to act on and believe in, and other parts to ignore. We have one very notable example of this in our Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Paul Martin. He is a church-going, practising Catholic, who **passionately** believes in same sex marriage. He believes (IMHO wrongly) that the Canadian Constitution gives same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual ones. So there is a Bill before our House of Commons to legalize same sex marriages. A less well known event occurred some 20 years ago, when Henry Morganthaler opened his abortion clinic in Toronto. Every day, anti-abortion crowds harassed anyone going into the clinic. The police had a detail which escorted doctors, nurses and patients into the clinic. A devote Catholic police officer was assigned to this duty, and refused to do it on account of his religeous beliefs. He was promptly given a dishonorable discharge for disobeying his oath of office, received no severance pay, and no pension. He got absolutely no support from anyone. My point is that the Catholic Church in the developed world is in grave danger from this "cherry picking" of the articles of faith, declared ex cathedra, by the Pope in Rome. I believe there is a sort of Catholic Church in The Netherlands region around Maastrich which allows a considerable role for females, and other things that Pope Benedict XVI opposes. If this sort of thing spreads to North America, and the whole of Europe, it could lead to the "Episcopalization" of the Roman Catholic Church. Episcopalians in the USA pay no money the the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. It is, to me, not unthinkable, that funds needed to run the $260 million US dollars a year it takes to run the Vatican, will rapidly dry up in the very near future. There may be hundreds of millions of Catholics in South America and Africa, but they dont have any money.

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

To usurp Pat's role as devil's advocate for a moment, are you suggesting, Jim, that a police officer be allowed to "cherry pick"--to protect only those people he or she deems worthy of protection?? Will the law against, say, assault only apply when the victim is someone the police officer called approves of?? Dawne

Maybe the sign over the door should say "Catholic Pharmacy" rather as you see "Halal Butcher". ;-))

Pat P

Absolutely not. Canadian Law is the law, and ***NO-ONE*** can decide which parts to obey, and which parts not to obey. The Catholic Church would like the same thing to apply to its dogma, and what I am saying is that if this is allowed, then the Catholic Church is in great danger of losing all authority. Canada is a democracy. The laws of the land are decided by the people of Canada, through our Houses of Parliament. They are enforced by the law enforcement agencies, and the courts. If our citizens dont like the laws, we can get them changed. The Catholic Church is a dictatorship. Members of the church have little or no say in what the dogma is that is given ex cathedra. And this is the problem the Catholic Cjurch now faces. Catholics are starting the "cherry pick" their beliefs, because they cannot get them changed. Incidentally, it may interest some people that there is *no* law on abortion in Canada. Merely the medical requirements laid down by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which IMHO, could be challenged in court. The existing law was ruled to be ultra vires when Henry Morganthaler deliberately disobeyed the law, was brought to trial, and found not guilty by 4 (yes four!) juries of his peers. The Supreme Court of Canada, on appeal, ruled the law to be completely unconstitutional.

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"