Culpability of doctors in prescribing The Pill

[ColdSilverMoon]

You're speaking about the intent of the pharmaceutical manufacturers. I'm speaking about chemistry.

It doesn't matter what the pill is "intended" to do. Chemicals are chemicals, and the chemicals cause thinning of the endometrium. As you said, it may be in varying degrees, but if the effects of these chemicals are so relative then it's a surprise the things are so popular and effective.

I understand your what you're saying, but the point of the thread is the culpability of doctors who prescribe OCPs. My argument is that they are not culpable in "murder" or "wrongful death" or whatever else you want to call it because the intent of the pill (at standard doses) is to prevent conception, not to kill an already-formed zygote. I'm sure the pill has resulted in abortions as an unintended consequence, and the same could be said for almost any drug on the market. If a woman or couple decides not to take OCPs because they don't want to risk an unintended abortion, I understand their viewpoint and support their decision. But I also see nothing wrong with a Christian woman taking OCPs as they were intended to be taken. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with a Christian doctor prescribing them, given the intent and the very small risk involved.

 

[Craig]

I thought this would be worthwile for people to watch:

[video=youtube;jiCU46_lWeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE[/video]

 

[DavidinKnoxville]

I strongly agree with your first paragraph and strongly disagree with your second paragraph.

The first paragraph shows that one can take or give birth control pills without sin.

THe second paragraph, however, says that when life begins is opinion, which is a very dangerous position.

Agree completely, especially with your last point. All medical school text books say life begins at conception. Only secular philosophers and politicans would seek to define it otherwise.

Are you saying that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is indeed equivalent to murder morally? Then the only contraceptives that are morally acceptable are barrier-type--diaphragms, male condoms, female condoms, and permanent surgical sterilization.

And?

An abortion is an abortion is an abortion.

 

[DavidinKnoxville]

Agree completely, especially with your last point. All medical school text books say life begins at conception. Only secular philosophers and politicans would seek to define it otherwise.

Are you saying that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is indeed equivalent to murder morally? Then the only contraceptives that are morally acceptable are barrier-type--diaphragms, male condoms, female condoms, and permanent surgical sterilization.

If some type of method is used (morning after pill, IUD's, etc) that intentionally prevent implantation of fertilized egg, then yes, it is murder, because it is taking a life just like abortion does. But this is not the intent of the pill, it is a rare side effect, and thus I wouldn't consider it murder.

What does the intent matter? If it has the potential to abort life then it should not be used. Period.

 

[SRoper]

Treading carefully, and being open to correction, I do think the answer depends to some extent, on exactly how often the pill in question causes abortions.

The more I think about it, the more I think that you are right about the importance of what order of magnitude this probability is. If there is a 50% chance that a woman will have one additional abortion/miscarriage after a year of use, then I think we would all agree that that risk is unacceptable. If, however, it would take 1000 years of use before the probability of an additional miscarriage reaches 50%, then many of us would say that is an acceptable risk.

Since I think it is a good principle to not bind others to the same strictness that we bind ourselves, it seems reasonable for a doctor to prescribe chemical contraceptives that she would not be willing to use herself. Different people can come to different conclusions about what level of risk is acceptable.

 

[TimV]

What does the intent matter? If it has the potential to abort life then it should not be used. Period.

Actually in Christian ethics motive is an important aspect.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Are you saying that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is indeed equivalent to murder morally? Then the only contraceptives that are morally acceptable are barrier-type--diaphragms, male condoms, female condoms, and permanent surgical sterilization.

If some type of method is used (morning after pill, IUD's, etc) that intentionally prevent implantation of fertilized egg, then yes, it is murder, because it is taking a life just like abortion does. But this is not the intent of the pill, it is a rare side effect, and thus I wouldn't consider it murder.

What does the intent matter? If it has the potential to abort life then it should not be used. Period.

All medications can cause an abortion, with varying degree of risk. To be consistent then, I assume you would advocate stopping the use of virtually ALL medications, along with many food additives and vitamin supplements. If the goal is to avoid ANY chance of an abortion, then women of child bearing age, who might possibly get pregnant, should take essentially no meds, no matter how necessary, and should eat only organic foods in strict moderation. You could even make a case for strict bed rest throughout the pregnancy, as was practiced in the Middle Ages. Hopefully you see this position is a bit absurd. I understand not wanting to take the pill, but if the goal is to avoid abortion at all cost, then you have to go much farther than that.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Treading carefully, and being open to correction, I do think the answer depends to some extent, on exactly how often the pill in question causes abortions.

The more I think about it, the more I think that you are right about the importance of what order of magnitude this probability is. If there is a 50% chance that a woman will have one additional abortion/miscarriage after a year of use, then I think we would all agree that that risk is unacceptable. If, however, it would take 1000 years of use before the probability of an additional miscarriage reaches 50%, then many of us would say that is an acceptable risk.

Since I think it is a good principle to not bind others to the same strictness that we bind ourselves, it seems reasonable for a doctor to prescribe chemical contraceptives that she would not be willing to use herself. Different people can come to different conclusions about what level of risk is acceptable.

This is a very reasonable position.

 

[DavidinKnoxville]

All medications can cause an abortion, with varying degree of risk. To be consistent then, I assume you would advocate stopping the use of virtually ALL medications, along with many food additives and vitamin supplements. If the goal is to avoid ANY chance of an abortion, then women of child bearing age, who might possibly get pregnant, should take essentially no meds, no matter how necessary, and should eat only organic foods in strict moderation. You could even make a case for strict bed rest throughout the pregnancy, as was practiced in the Middle Ages. Hopefully you see this position is a bit absurd. I understand not wanting to take the pill, but if the goal is to avoid abortion at all cost, then you have to go much farther than that.

If you are taking the pill there are still ovulations and it is almost guaranteed that if the egg is fetilized it will not survive. These pills kill more children than they let on. There is literature and research out there that covers all this. Even if you are skeptical there is enough of an arguement there that we should not consider these methods.

Dave

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

If you are taking the pill there are still ovulations and it is almost guaranteed that if the egg is fetilized it will not survive. These pills kill more children than they let on. There is literature and research out there that covers all this. Even if you are skeptical there is enough of an arguement there that we should not consider these methods.

Dave

Sorry my friend, but none of what you say here is valid at all. First of all, ovulation does NOT occur when on the pill - the entire purpose of the pill is to prevent ovulation. If ovulation occurs, the pill has failed. And the statement "it is almost guaranteed that if the egg is fertilized it will not survive" has no medical or scientific basis whatsoever. Please show me your scientific journal where this has been shown. Otherwise, it would be best to stick to medical facts that you know rather than making blind assertions.

And the idea that because there is an argument it might be true, and if it might be true we should not consider these methods is ridiculous. Show me the proof to back your claims and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I'm not going to hold doctors culpable for prescribing the pill just because there is an argument against it.

 

[sastark]

Me and my wife personally came to these conclusions:

--We went off The Pill due to a lack of light on the subject of whether the newer-generation pills indeed prevent implantation or not. We see the Pill as helpful for single girls in preventing other problems.

--We would not tell another person they are sinning by taking the Pill but for us we think that even a slight chance that the Pill prevents implanation of an already fertilized eggs demands that we not take any a slight chance.

--We also do not take any medications that have abortion as a possible and proven side-effect. My wife limits her malaria prevention due to this, but the Lord has blessed her with health.

--We still believe, however, that it is consistent with Biblical stewardship to be able to space your children within limits, but that a desire not to have children entirely is questionable. The concept of birth control or spacing is not per se wrong, however, and we cannot automatically condemn it. There just needs to be good reasons (besides convenience) for its practice. In general Christian families like kids but fertility cannot be linked to holiness.

--Since the Pill is questionable and IUD's prevent implantation, the options left would be the poor discontinued sponge or condoms.

--If we distributed medications, we would NOT give RU486 but we would give the Pill.

My wife and I have come to very similar conclusions as Points 1, 3, and 4 (minus the malaria medication issue). However, on point 2, I personally feel that once a woman is educated on the subject and she continues to use abortive oral contraceptives, she is sinning and willfully. I don't know that it would be my place to tell her that (better her husband or her pastor than I), but I do feel it is sinful.

 

[sastark]

If some type of method is used (morning after pill, IUD's, etc) that intentionally prevent implantation of fertilized egg, then yes, it is murder, because it is taking a life just like abortion does. But this is not the intent of the pill, it is a rare side effect, and thus I wouldn't consider it murder.

Perhaps this is a minor semantic point, but a pill cannot have intent. The person consuming the pill does.

 

[sastark]

PDF - Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? By Randy Alcorn. You can read about this PDF (it's 197 pages long) here.

And the short answer to the question is: Yes.

 

[DavidinKnoxville]

If you are taking the pill there are still ovulations and it is almost guaranteed that if the egg is fetilized it will not survive. These pills kill more children than they let on. There is literature and research out there that covers all this. Even if you are skeptical there is enough of an arguement there that we should not consider these methods.

Dave

Sorry my friend, but none of what you say here is valid at all. First of all, ovulation does NOT occur when on the pill - the entire purpose of the pill is to prevent ovulation. If ovulation occurs, the pill has failed. And the statement "it is almost guaranteed that if the egg is fertilized it will not survive" has no medical or scientific basis whatsoever. Please show me your scientific journal where this has been shown. Otherwise, it would be best to stick to medical facts that you know rather than making blind assertions.

And the idea that because there is an argument it might be true, and if it might be true we should not consider these methods is ridiculous. Show me the proof to back your claims and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I'm not going to hold doctors culpable for prescribing the pill just because there is an argument against it.

Ovulation does happen while on the pill. It is called "breakthrough" ovulation. When breakthrough ovulation occurs and the woman becomes pregnant the fertilized egg is destroyed in most cases.


Here is a very good article on the subject in addition to the link provided by sastark:

Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive


"On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil's product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill.) I took detailed notes.

Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear...

I asked him, "Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?" He said "Yes." I asked, "What happens then?" He said, "The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn't work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won't implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium." (Emphasis in the original)

I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. "Oh yes," he replied. I said, "So you don't think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?" He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

"Oh, no, it's not theoretical. It's observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it's rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do to."