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

I don't think we want to lose people who are excellent at their job but have objections to certain elements of it based on their own moral code. However, to protect the public I think they should sign a conflict of interest declaration and that all roles should have an impact assessment about how fulfilment of those roles may be affected by certain objections.

So, someone who objects to dispensing the MAP can work in a city where there are plenty of other pharmacies available within walking distance, or maybe in a pharmacy where there are two members of staff on and the other pharmacist doesn't have that objection, but can't work alone at a remote pharmacy providing weekend cover for example.

Where I used to love there was only one pharmacy for miles and public transport was shit. Why should someone have to go to another pharmacy which may not even be possible for time sensitive medication just because someone refuses to do their job?

And why would the burden be on women who were refused Map have to take their case to the media so you can see the issue?

The burden should be on pharmacists to declare how many women they have stopped from accessing the MAP and those figures should be published.

I do not think that should be allowed either within the nhs. You do the job in its entirety, or do a different job.

Like those people whose religion doesn't allow them to drink alcohol, then get a job in a supermarket and refuse to restock the wine aisles or check out customers with a few bottles or cans in their trolley. Work somewhere else like B&Q.

Why on earth would it be in the news? It's been the case for years.

I can't see in the news that this has happened recently.

I hate these vague types of posts without any context.

Not urban legend sadly, it happened to me about 15 years ago. The pharmacist was muslim and refused to give me the morning after pill as his beliefs didn’t allow it. He did suggest another pharmacy that would though, so that was nice of him. 🙄

Exactly this. ^ If someone takes on a certain job or career, and their religious beliefs mean they can't perform new tasks (like prescribing a MAP for a customer over the counter which is fairly recent,) then they need to retrain for something else, and let someone who can do the job properly do it.

As I - and other posters have said - isn't it interesting how all these rooolz in these organised religions (pretty much ALL of them) seem to affect women. As a pp said, no MAN would be having to go to the other side of town to another pharmacist, because these rules never affect men.

And you can see the privilege oozing from some in this thread; suggesting women just fuck off to another pharmacist to get their meds! Not everyone has transport, and like in my market town, the next closest pharmacist is 12 miles away! Also, what if the next pharmacist won't supply what you need 'because religion?!' And then the next and the next and the next!

I re-iterate. If they can't fulfil the role properly, they need to retrain for a new career. Maybe something where they are not supposed to be helping women in need of medical help!

How do you disagree with the MAP???? Do you disagree with all hormonal contraception? Or all contraception?

I got the MAP in my 40s as a mum of 4 from a quite embarrassed 20s male pharmacist 😀 we'd used other contraception and it had failed so MAP as didn't want to risk no 5!!!

How does that contradict a pharmacist's personal beliefs? Or do they mean certain women and girls shouldn't be allowed it/don't deserve it/should be punished for having sex?

It's happened to me. I don't have a problem with the principle, but I do think the pharmacist should have to put a clearly visible sign up when they're working to let their customers know, plus the details of the nearest pharmacy who will supply.

It was a conversation I'd rather not have had with the pharmacist in a large queue of people tbh. I was young and quite nervous.

Same with GPs. I'd rather know in advance if my GP has beliefs that are incompatible with referring me to the full range of health services so I can choose not to see them.

A friend had her abortion delayed by several weeks by such a GP - it felt deliberate to her tbh, but it could genuinely have been because another GP wasn't available, who knows.

Oh just go to a different pharmacy.

Think of it's made clear but in a discrete way. Maybe signposting to the nearest pharmacy who does prescribe the MAP.

A GP at local surgery didn't do referrals for pregnancy terminations due to personal beliefs and there was sign behind the reception saying this. So you knew to ask for another doctor

It’s all very well saying don’t do the job if you don’t want to do it all but there won’t magically be enough other doctors or pharmacists to do the job without those that do object. We needs them for the massive rest of the job they do.

Don't be dense. Among the cohort of women who need the map are those who have been assaulted and may not have had either the headspace or even the freedom to seek care until some time after intercourse.

Oh come on. It's not that tight a timeframe, some MAPs work up to 5 days after intercourse. We don't need to blue-light women across the county.

It is available OTC, but that doesn't mean any old 'shop staff' can supply it. Jesus Christ, there is a massive lack of understanding around pharmacy and medicines in this country. The pharmacist still has to supervise sale of Pharmacy medications, even if bought OTC. Same for co-codamol, certain types of Sudafed etc.

It happened to me a few years ago.

I went to a different pharmacy where the pharmacist prescribed it with no issues and for me, it wasn’t a big deal, but for someone who had to get a bus or a train, trekking over to the opposite side of town would have been a nightmare.

I don’t think pharmacists shouldn’t have the right to refuse, but given the tight timeframe women have to take the MAP, having to faff about could have consequences for the women.

They should make the MAP more readily available - sold over the counter in the pharmacy for example, then any shop staff could sell it rather than just the pharmacist. Or the GP or local GUM clinic could dispense it instead.

It’s the rules @Soubriquet , everyone knows this. A pharmacist can also refuse to prescribe or sell over the counter items for many other reasons (maybe any reason). This is enshrined into their jobs.

Well this really random statement with no context is a bit combative isn't it?

This sounds a bit like shit stirring or an urban legend to be honest. Notice how the OP hasn't come back to clarify if it's actually something that happened to her or if it's referencing a news story, and if so, in which country. Normalise giving context.

Yes, this.

What about if somebody has been a HCP for decades, but then puberty blockers for trans children become 'a thing', to which they have a strong personal moral objection?

Should all GC surgeons now be forced out of their career if they don't wish to operate on people wanting healthy genitals permanently removed and replaced with facsimiles of opposite-sex genitals?

I read years ago about a surgeon who amputated perfectly healthy legs from people with severe MH problems that made them believe that their healthy legs were seriously negatively impacting their lives and/or trying to kill them. Should all surgeons who would not have done this be struck off?

What happens when euthanasia becomes law, as it no doubt soon will? Will medical professionals with moral objections not be allowed to decline to administer it? What about in highly contentious cases, as we've seen in other countries where it is legal, such as people being offered/encouraged to choose euthanasia simply because they are poor or disabled and can't obtain/afford housing with suitable accessibility adaptations for their needs?

It goes further than just healthcare too. Thinking of the 'gay cake' case - not just a Christian-owned bakery objecting to making a 'Happy Birthday, Gary' cake for somebody who happened to be gay, but declining to make a cake with a clearly political slogan affirming their support for (at the time not yet legal) gay marriage.

Of course it would be a very strange career choice to work in an abattoir as a vegan; but I've heard of Muslims who work in supermarkets where less than 1% of their turnover is alcohol - and they just ask a non-Muslim colleague to handle those sales, without any drama - in fact, in the same way that a 17yo supermarket worker would ask an older colleague to do the same.

I think it's an extremely slippery slope to state that anybody in any job who has any objections to any part of it - especially new developments that didn't even exist when they began their career - must resign or be sacked. As long as those with objections accept that others will not share them and thus don't stand in the way of patients/customers seeking somebody who will provide it for them.

I think this goes quadruple for anybody with (what were until recently standard mainstream) GC views who hasn't seen the bigger picture. So if you won't dispense the MAP, you can't be a pharmacist; if you won't acknowledge that a person has literally changed sex and must now be completely treated as the opposite sex, with no regard paid to the valid concerns and fears of those who are of that sex, you can't do... pretty much any job these days?

For some people abortion is the taking of a life and they are allowed to have those views - it is not entirely illogical. Thank goodness that we live somewhere where they are allowed to hold that view and for it to be respected.

Totally agree.

I had this happen to me several years ago, I had to get a train to another pharmacy, I was crying and just an awful situation to be put in. I agree, if your religious believes stop you, you should look for another role.