Re: On limiting evil vs. cooperation with evil

[Guest guest]

Dominic,I appreciate your delicate conscience in the matter when so many are callous.  I believe, you, Fr. and I do agree in principle, however.  Question is in the translation without splitting hairs.  It may all come down to 's

statement as you said, " we decided " .  My presumption is that wanted 'no part' in providing contraceptives to patients, directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the health practice protocols and doctors' office routines as described them. This world forces us into many moral choices.  I think, however, it may be possible to work in a doctor's office stipulating to those in charge one's moral limits and hopefully they agree and honor one's conscience.  would need to 'decide' if she is being used for immoral purposes.  By way of analogy I recall a personal moral quandary I faced when ( way back when ) I was in the Army Reserves during the Viet Nam War which I considered immoral.  I had decided that if I was " called up " in the conflict I would refuse and be court-marshaled and perhaps imprisoned.  I was not called up. That was not the Army I joined, and while a Reservist I did my duty.  Blessings,

Fr. Tom 

 

Dominic,

You make it sound like it is so easy. Unfortunately, it is not. For instance, in Florida, where is practicing, it is required to submit a written protocol to the State Board, and this protocol has to be approved, in writing by a physician the NP, CNM, or CRNA has made arrangements with for " back-up " , is employed by, " supervised " etc.So in essence, we/they have to have " approval " for what we are doing and how we are doing it.

The exact wording, from http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/nursing/nur_statutes.html:

An

advanced registered nurse practitioner shall perform those functions

authorized in this section within the framework of an established

protocol that is filed with the board upon biennial license renewal and

within 30 days after entering into a supervisory relationship with a

physician or changes to the protocol. The board shall review the

protocol to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory standards for

protocols. The board shall refer to the department licensees submitting

protocols that are not compliant with the regulatory standards for

protocols. A practitioner currently licensed under chapter 458, chapter

459, or chapter 466 shall maintain supervision for directing the

specific course of medical treatment. Within the established framework,

an advanced registered nurse practitioner may:....So you can see the dilema for those of us who are not physicians. I MOVED my whole family to OMAHA, and took a temporary job there precisely so I could attend the combined program Creighton Model training. Having that training in no way made it easier to have a private practice- at least not one that would be substantial enough to pay for my mortgage and my groceries, let alone clothing and misc for my children. I have not even had enough NFP clients to become certified as a practitioner in the 7 years since I completed that program. And since there have been very few physicians who know and practice only NFP, let alone the Creighton Model, it has been very difficult to find any job or position of employment that is supporting of that. The best we - as NP's/CNM's (and probably PA's) can get is tolerance, and even that is hard to come by.  To get it in *writing* that they (physicians) approve of our protocols is even harder.  Add to that the difficulty in getting the physicians to agree to " let us " RX the medications that are needed, (ie bio-identical progesterone, HCG tx, low dose clomid, etc).- and we have another battle...

That said, every state has different rules, and some states do allow for independent practice, such as Iowa, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and perhaps a few others I can't recall offhand. 

I am not trying to be negative, but you need to understand that as hard as it is for a physician to be NFP only, it can be that much harder for a non-physician provider to be NFP only. 

 

Your last 2 statements are very true, however, that is where the cross

comes in. I think that has done all that she can in her situation, and do not agree that telling the patient what to expect next is " helping " or being complicit in any way. Nor is is she being complicit in agreeing to letting the physicians see the patients behind her. She really has no choice in this situation, other than to leave the practice, unless one of the other suggestions we have made will be agreeable. I think the fact that the physicians she is working with are at least being tolerant of her NFP only practice, is admirable on their part. They obviously do not have the background or understanding for our theological,  ideological or biological objections to the practice of contraception. Sounds like is working on that end of it though!

Sandrock, RNC-OB, APRN, CNM, MSN

Now to go beyond being negative! After going to Creighton and becoming both NFP medical consultant and practitioner, she will see the way forward out of this because she will see that she does not need to be in this association to have a practice. (I did the same thing before establishing my " contraceptology " clinic) Nor does she need to be used so that the FP-MD can waltz in and write the corrupt prescription after has done all the hard

work, only to be severely demoralized by the end result and by being undermined consistently. This last thing and the moral problem is the likely reason she feels the way she does and who can blame her. To me it is morally, emotionally, and professionally defeating and an untenable situation and no Catholic provider ought to feel she has to remain in it.