My right to know what a drug does
I haven't used live journal in a long, long, time. There are a couple of different reasons for this, but it basically comes down to having different--really, polar opposite--views of things than most of my LJ friends. You have probably noted this, because it is not easy to miss. The things that matter most to me, that I am most likely to want to write and think about, are things that most of the people here do not care about or are diametrically opposed to my opinion. Whenever I posted about these things, which matter deeply and personally to me, the only comments I received were about tearing apart my views. So I went out into the large world of blogging and have found some others who share my views, though they are few and far between in some areas. And I stopped posting here because I was not edifying anyone and no one was edifying me, and I would rather post things no one would read than get negative comments. Everything in my personal life relates back to my values, and somehow I just don't feel compelled to share it with people who, on average, think it's okay for a "doctor" to birth a baby halfway and then stick scissors in the back of her skull. Or even not birth a baby but tear or cut her into pieces and drag or suck out the parts of her body. (I know there are probably at least 3, maybe 6, who don't think this way. But if you are one of these, you are the exception).
Now that I have insulted most of my audience, I want to make mention of something that we all ought to agree on. And that is that medical professionals have a duty to inform their patients about prescriptions which may violate their consciences.
Most forms of birth control should violate the consciences of practicing Christians, unless they believe that Jesus' command not to murder was somehow conditional based on whether the victim might be inconvenient to someone.
The IUD (intrauterine device) is one that many, but not all, Christians know about. The IUD works mainly by irritating the uterine lining so that a child will not be able to implant. The child, in this case, is about 7 days old and in the blastocyst stage. "Child" is still an accurate term because the blastocyst in question is fully human but not an adult. The word sometimes used for medical interventions that have this sort of effect is "abortifacient." Notice that an intervention is necessary, because avoiding pregnancy is not a natural state.
Many fewer Christians (and others who believe that killing children is wrong, even if you don't see them) are aware of the abortifacient effects of hormonal forms of birth control (which include the pill, patch, shot... anything where conception is avoided by means other than preventing sperm from reaching eggs). The primary method by which the birth control works is by preventing ovulation. Few people who think that any birth control can be ethical think that this is unethical. The second method is to change cervical fluids to make it less likely that the sperm will reach the egg. This is also a contraceptive effect. The third method of action is that the lining of the uterus is thinned to make it extremely unlikely that the child will be able to implant. This makes the pill (and other hormonal methods of birth control) abortifacient.
The proof that this sometimes happens is in a certain ratio. Now, there are some people who become pregnant despite using birth control. This proves that ovulation is not always prevented. You may be aware that sometimes, a child will implant somewhere other than the uterus. (If not, now you are.) This type of pregnancy, called an ectopic pregnancy, is fatal for the child and sometimes the mother. Most commonly, these children implant in the fallopian tubes, and it is sometimes called a tubal pregnancy. Now, if the only actions the birth control pill took were the first two, one would expect the ratio of normal to ectopic pregnancies to remain the same across both women who use the pill and women who did not. It does not. I will actually google this one for you. Here is one such study. The only other way to see the decrease in the ratio of normal to ectopic pregnancies in women who use the pill is that the pill somehow causes ectopic pregnancies. This is not an argument that it is safer for women or their children.
I fully expect that most of you don't particularly care, seeing as you would think it was fine if a "doctor" injected a woman with a poisonous solution which burned off her baby's skin and caused him to die a slow, painful death, even if that child was old enough to look undeniably human.
What should concern everyone is that the American Medical Association (AMA) has been deliberately deceptive about the way hormonal birth control works. They changed the definition of conception from the time the sperm meets the egg--which is what most people think of when they think of conception--to the time the child implants in the womb. This was done so that hormonal birth control could be called a contraceptive instead of an abortifacient. This is how doctors get away with not explaining what the birth control does fully. Even if material mentions changes to the uterine lining, it does not mention the implications. Saying that they should not have to tell if they are not asked is rather dishonest considering all the things that health care providers and drug companies are required to tell those who take their medicines. Why don't they say anything? Because doctors and pharmacists make whole piles of money off birth control. What else can you sell a healthy person other than something that makes her body stop working the way it naturally would?
Let me tell you about the care I received from one doctor several years ago, which I believe is typical. I wanted to find out more about birth control, so I went to my doctor. Because I was not sure about the pill even then, I asked for information about natural family planning. She told me she would get me a pamphlet. The next time I saw her, she hadn't gotten me any such thing. She prescribed me the pill without giving me the information on alternatives I had requested or even exploring why I wanted that information. She gave me a spiel on what symptoms meant I should call or come back, but did not tell me how the pill worked. I believe that this doctor, however helpful she might have been with other health issues, was negligent when it came to this one. And I think that is inexcusable. Whatever you may think of my views, do I not have the right to be informed about issues that would violate my conscience, and the right to information about natural, effective alternatives to using drugs?
An informal poll:
Do you think I should keep writing here occasionally?
a) Yes, I am one of the 3-6 people who has some agreement with your values.
b) Yes, I like to hear why right-wing kooks want to take away my right to control my body, you fascist scumbag. (Oh, I suppose you can leave off the ad hominem if you want.)
c) Yes, I like to hear different points of view.
d) No, frankly I don't care about this stuff and don't want it in my friends list.
e) No, I hate you now.
f) I don't care either way.
g) You should write more in general 'cause you have interesting things to say
(option g courtesy of Taran)
Almost forgot a scripture verse for the post. Here it is:
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Ephesians 4:31
That one's for me, though, so don't worry about it too much.
Now that I have insulted most of my audience, I want to make mention of something that we all ought to agree on. And that is that medical professionals have a duty to inform their patients about prescriptions which may violate their consciences.
Most forms of birth control should violate the consciences of practicing Christians, unless they believe that Jesus' command not to murder was somehow conditional based on whether the victim might be inconvenient to someone.
The IUD (intrauterine device) is one that many, but not all, Christians know about. The IUD works mainly by irritating the uterine lining so that a child will not be able to implant. The child, in this case, is about 7 days old and in the blastocyst stage. "Child" is still an accurate term because the blastocyst in question is fully human but not an adult. The word sometimes used for medical interventions that have this sort of effect is "abortifacient." Notice that an intervention is necessary, because avoiding pregnancy is not a natural state.
Many fewer Christians (and others who believe that killing children is wrong, even if you don't see them) are aware of the abortifacient effects of hormonal forms of birth control (which include the pill, patch, shot... anything where conception is avoided by means other than preventing sperm from reaching eggs). The primary method by which the birth control works is by preventing ovulation. Few people who think that any birth control can be ethical think that this is unethical. The second method is to change cervical fluids to make it less likely that the sperm will reach the egg. This is also a contraceptive effect. The third method of action is that the lining of the uterus is thinned to make it extremely unlikely that the child will be able to implant. This makes the pill (and other hormonal methods of birth control) abortifacient.
The proof that this sometimes happens is in a certain ratio. Now, there are some people who become pregnant despite using birth control. This proves that ovulation is not always prevented. You may be aware that sometimes, a child will implant somewhere other than the uterus. (If not, now you are.) This type of pregnancy, called an ectopic pregnancy, is fatal for the child and sometimes the mother. Most commonly, these children implant in the fallopian tubes, and it is sometimes called a tubal pregnancy. Now, if the only actions the birth control pill took were the first two, one would expect the ratio of normal to ectopic pregnancies to remain the same across both women who use the pill and women who did not. It does not. I will actually google this one for you. Here is one such study. The only other way to see the decrease in the ratio of normal to ectopic pregnancies in women who use the pill is that the pill somehow causes ectopic pregnancies. This is not an argument that it is safer for women or their children.
I fully expect that most of you don't particularly care, seeing as you would think it was fine if a "doctor" injected a woman with a poisonous solution which burned off her baby's skin and caused him to die a slow, painful death, even if that child was old enough to look undeniably human.
What should concern everyone is that the American Medical Association (AMA) has been deliberately deceptive about the way hormonal birth control works. They changed the definition of conception from the time the sperm meets the egg--which is what most people think of when they think of conception--to the time the child implants in the womb. This was done so that hormonal birth control could be called a contraceptive instead of an abortifacient. This is how doctors get away with not explaining what the birth control does fully. Even if material mentions changes to the uterine lining, it does not mention the implications. Saying that they should not have to tell if they are not asked is rather dishonest considering all the things that health care providers and drug companies are required to tell those who take their medicines. Why don't they say anything? Because doctors and pharmacists make whole piles of money off birth control. What else can you sell a healthy person other than something that makes her body stop working the way it naturally would?
Let me tell you about the care I received from one doctor several years ago, which I believe is typical. I wanted to find out more about birth control, so I went to my doctor. Because I was not sure about the pill even then, I asked for information about natural family planning. She told me she would get me a pamphlet. The next time I saw her, she hadn't gotten me any such thing. She prescribed me the pill without giving me the information on alternatives I had requested or even exploring why I wanted that information. She gave me a spiel on what symptoms meant I should call or come back, but did not tell me how the pill worked. I believe that this doctor, however helpful she might have been with other health issues, was negligent when it came to this one. And I think that is inexcusable. Whatever you may think of my views, do I not have the right to be informed about issues that would violate my conscience, and the right to information about natural, effective alternatives to using drugs?
An informal poll:
Do you think I should keep writing here occasionally?
a) Yes, I am one of the 3-6 people who has some agreement with your values.
b) Yes, I like to hear why right-wing kooks want to take away my right to control my body, you fascist scumbag. (Oh, I suppose you can leave off the ad hominem if you want.)
c) Yes, I like to hear different points of view.
d) No, frankly I don't care about this stuff and don't want it in my friends list.
e) No, I hate you now.
f) I don't care either way.
g) You should write more in general 'cause you have interesting things to say
(option g courtesy of Taran)
Almost forgot a scripture verse for the post. Here it is:
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Ephesians 4:31
That one's for me, though, so don't worry about it too much.