Today, the American Association of Pediatrics recommended that pediatricians write prescriptions for their younger teen patients for Plan B, referred to by some as "emergency contraception" and others as "the abortion pill."
Technically both terms are accurate, or rather one or the other the will apply. The morning after pill can keep an egg from being released (contraception), keep sperm from fertilizing an egg (contraception), or alter the uterine lining to make it inhospitable fit a fertilized egg to attach (abortion). So...the user won't really know if they have prevented a pregnancy or aborted one. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
My local news cast reported that doctors were urged that they should prescribe the morning after pill for young teens "regardless of their religious convictions" which I find appalling seeing as I was under the impression that we prize religious freedom and would hate the notion that in a country as divided as we are on the abortion issue, we should only have pro choice doctors or force half of the doctors in our country to defy their own convictions about what is best for their patients and what they personally can live with. If a doctor needs to refer a patient who asks for it elsewhere, that should be their right.
If a doctor has an agenda their patient may not share, should he or she be obligated to say so? My gut reaction is yes. I'd appreciate something like "I'm a Christian and as such I do not feel right prescribing that though there are other doctors in this practice who disagree and they do prescribe it." Or how about this one which I would've appreciated earlier in life? "I've been given tons of incentives from a pharmaceutical company to get you on the pill so I'm going to dodge all your questions about how it actually works because I think if I told you, your religious convictions might have you say no."
Bottom line: Doctors are citizens too with the right to live their religious convictions. Patients deserve all the information needed to make their own informed decision. These two things can be compatible in my opinion.
It's probably not hard to tell which side of this debate I'm on, and there are many many points and side topics that could be covered, but regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you can probably relate to these thoughts...
If they were doing this in the 80s, some of my friends' wonderful firstborn children would not exist.
If they were giving out the morning after pill in the 60's, some of my favorite friends, and some of the most interesting people I've ever met would not exist.
What a shame that would be.
What a shame this will be.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-teens-emergency-contraception-20121126,0,6178858.story
IN OTHER NEWS...
Actor Angus T. Jones has taken to biting the hand that feeds him. Due to his newfound faith as a Seventh Day Adventist, he urges viewers to stop watching Two and a Half Men, calling the show filth.
Meanwhile his family feel he's being exploited. They may have a point. Whenever a high profile figure has a conversion experience, they are thrust in front of the spotlight instead of protected so they can adjust to what is for most a major change. It really annoys me.
But after several years of signing off on hours and hours of quality time the likes of Charlie Sheen, and script after script that make uber promiscuity sound awesome and all manner of inappropriate subject matter for a young boy, are they worried about him being exploited or being exploited FOR FREE?
Either way, I'm glad that kid is over that show and I'm glad someone else finally said it. I've been saying it sucked for years.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/two-and-a-half-men-star-angus-t-jones-calls-show-filth/
