To think if a pharmacist refuses to dispense medication due to religious or personal beliefs

Yes, I think that statistic is much more likely.

This stat appears to be from a survey conducted by the manufacturer of EllaOne. Some bias could be suspected. CDC reference here that I believe would be more reliable, although American. "Among women aged 22–49 years who have ever had sexual intercourse, 24.3% have ever used emergency contraception". That stat sounds far more realistic.

Agree. If that was true surely an information campaign would be launched to educate men about using a condom. This should happen in any case. Why don’t some men take responsibility for their actions.

I don't believe 20% of women are receiving the MAP every single year.

80% don't in any given year. I can't find anything about the numbers who might use the MAP from 18 to menopause.

You won’t get anything more definitive from the GPhC I’m afraid :/ if any patient has been inconvenienced or their treatment delayed that’s a huge fuck up and I’d report it. But I’ve lost my place on what actually happened so I’ll read the OP again before I add anything else to the thread 😅

Have you actually read it though? Lots of talk of person centred care, equality and diversity, respecting others beliefs and values; all very nice inclusive fluffy sounding phrases that don't actually mean anything. I war hoping for something a little more substantial!

There’s guidance / policy 🤷 from the GPhC about this very scenario. The patient’s needs always come first. The GPhC would want to know that any pharmacist refusing to sell the MAP have followed those guidelines if there were a complaint.

https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/about-us/news-and-updates/regulate/religion-personal-values-and-beliefs-providing-emergency-hormonal-contraception

It means 80% don’t. You’re absolutely right 20% isn’t a vast majority.

A quick Google shows: one in five British women between 18 and 35 takes the morning after pill each year. That's not really a vast majority, is it?

The vast majority of women have never needed the MAP and the number of pharmacists who won’t dispense it is miniscule

How can you say that with any conviction? I would hazard a guess a majority of women have used the MAP at some point. I can't imagine there are many pharmacists who won't dispense but even a small number can cause significant problems with the numbers they deal with daily, weekly, monthly.

No reputable organisation still suggests that the MAP prevents implantation. It ONLY prevents fertilisation.

It is the case that its mechanism wasn't well understood and there was a theory that it also could prevent implantation. That's no longer true.

If you've already ovulated then the MAP won't work, but obviously you still might not conceive since not all unprotected sex results in pregnancy.

Having a coil fitted can prevent implantation of a fertilised egg. That's a completely different thing though.

I is this even a thing ?

Sadly, yes. I experienced it about 20 years ago in my 30s living in London andcwas denied the MAP. Fortunately, finding another pharmacy in London wasn't hard. Far harder in smaller communities .

But the MAP works by preventing the fertilisation of the egg, or delaying the release of an egg. There is no way of knowing if the sperm has actually fertilized the egg; hence calling it an abortion pill is way off the mark. If pharmacists actually don't know this then that's quite concerning.

I think they know about the biology. Regardless of whether it is called abortion, they presumably believe that life begins when the egg is fertilised.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Worryingly, it's made the refusal even harder to accept - these are medical professionals who should know more than most about the biology of a woman's body, and reproduction!

Pro-life organisations still push the line that the MAP may prevent a fertilised egg from being implanted = early abortion in their eyes.

I don't think there are any that come straight out and say that it does, but they use "may" a lot.

It's a shame that some professionals who don't consider abortion to be compatible with their religious beliefs and thus won't prescribe/dispense the MAP aren't more curious about how the MAP works. It could set their minds at rest and improve services for women.

Sadly, some of them will inadvertently be part of the chain of events that ends up in a needless abortion if the woman can't get the MAP in time and conceives.

I think it is because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. You would have to ask someone who refuses to prescribe or dispense it the exact reason why though.

The MAP is considered to be abortion?! Do pharmacists not learn about the reproductive cycle at uni? Or if not, a quick Google search will tell you, the map has absolutely nothing to do with abortion!

I don't think it is valid because they are different professions and the way they are accessed is different. For example, people can usually only access one GP whereas they can access multiple pharmacies including online.
I also don't think it possible to force people to be involved with what they consider to be abortion and actually trying to force health care professionals could backfire. Abortion isn't available on demand in the UK.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless of whether it was a dispensing practice, the time taken up by navigating the gps refusal impacted on the posters ability to get the map from an alternative source. I'm not sure why you keep reiterating the point that it's nothing to do with pharmacists. Contrary to the thread title, I still think it's valid to include gps in the discussion as both groups have prescribing/ dispensing roles. In my personal case, which I talked about some way back in the thread, it WAS a pharmacist who refused my request.

The follow on wasn't preventable (assuming it wasn't a dispensing practice) as even if the GP had prescribed the poster couldn't make it to a chemist to get it dispensed. The practice should make it clear on their website that they might not prescribe the MAP but that again had nothing to do with pharmacists.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. As I see it, The main problem was the gp who refused to prescribe in the first place. If he had done his/her job without bias, all of the follow on was preventable.

The main problem in that situation was that the poster couldn't get time off work. Even if the GP had been willing to prescribe she probably would have had to wait until the next day and she said she couldn't get time off work then. Regardless it has nothing to do with pharmacists.

I suspect we’re talking about different posts.