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

Racism, misogyny and paedophilia aren’t moral choices @JaneTheVirgin.

I live in a small rural village which has one GP surgery, with one GP. He will not prescribe the morning after pill, nor will he refer anyone for a termination. This is all clearly stated on their website. Although neither of those things apply to me any more, I do wonder what younger women in the village are meant to do.

Yes, exactly - and pharmacists should work in areas they won't have the opportunity to dispense the MAP, not refuse it to dispense it to women. But they don't which is the point were talking about in this thread.

I know because they have been attached to police and/or prison guards.

I don't respect 'morals' which deny women the right to choose what to do with their body. Morals that can cause actual damage to women. And if you think about it for a very short while you'd understand why we absolutely cannot be forced to RESPECT other people's beliefs regardless of what they are. Maybe this one you agree with so I should respect it, but should we also be forced to respect racist beliefs? The belief men can change sex? The belief adults can have consensual sex with children? The belief women are to be slaves to their husband's?

Of course not.

What a pointless thread. OP posted and ran and now probably watching others fighting over a moot point. Has that actually ever happened?

The General Pharmaceutical Council guidelines specifically differentiate between refusing on grounds of belief and refusing on clinical grounds.

It does take it into account. If the patient hadn't been able to access a medication and suffered harm as a result they would be in trouble.

I would love to say I'm surprised but I'd be lying.

I went with DD to ask about the pill, not because they are sexually active, but because they suffer horrific periods (which they've inherited from me) and were 6 months away from sitting GCSEs. I thought, let's see what we can try and sort out, have 6 months to find the right pill, and hopefully sit exams with one less stress. Sensible, right?

Not according to the female GP we saw. It somehow made it worse being a woman.

Her attitude was atrocious. She basically accused DD of being a slapper, apparently she is sick of all you young girls coming in for the pill, we should test you for STDs, etc etc. That stemmed from a rash my DD had which is an ongoing, stress related form of eczema, not some Victorian STD.

It made no difference when DD pointed out they are a lesbian so not sexually active. I ended up walking out with DD as I was so angry. This wasn't years ago either, but 2022!

When we raised it and asked to see someone else, the attitude was "oh yes, X GP doesn't like to deal with things like that, especially with teens due to her religious beliefs. She feels English girls have the wrong attitude towards sex". Considering to get the appointment we had to explain why we wanted it, surely the system should have flagged that this GP was not appropriate to see?

I actually changed surgery I was so annoyed because they felt that justified her lack of professionalism. Basically her view is all English teenage girls are slappers. Surely dealing with their rights to choose to prevent teen pregnancy is better than a line out the door for terminations? Not according to that GP and the fact the manager did nothing but give an excuse as religion for it was disgusting.

I've recently done a course where we were told about an employee in a pub who refused to serve alcohol due to religious beliefs. Why would you even apply?

Maybe the answer would be to work in a clinical area where there’s no chance of your patient being a rapist. How would you know anyway? It’s hugely disrespectful to talk about “phony morals”. They’re not, they’re just different to yours.

I know of pharmacists who have declined to dispense puberty blockers to young teens. Do you think this is wrong too? They believed it was in the child's best interest. Not to mention the prescriptions were written by a Romanian doctor who the pharmacist had no way of finding out if they are genuine. Gender GP prescription obviously!!

Then it should be declassified to the same as paracetamol/canestan etc, that you can buy in the supermarkets with no one supervising. I doubt it’s addictive, which is what controlled drugs usually are.

One of the reasons it's not available off the shelf is that paedophiles can get underage girls to take it so they can go on sexually abusing them without it resulting in a pregnancy. This is why a consultation is needed to check the woman is not there as a result of rape.

@UpsideDownSomewhere I excerpted two small pieces. The guidelines give much more form.

But no, even just on what I excerpted I don’t think your reading is reasonable. They explicitly say so [the patient] can access the service they need in a timely manner and without hindrance.. Which a pharmacy miles away with no transport available would not provide.

I’m not claiming pharmacists never fail on this front. Just that there is a high bar they are supposed to live up to and a mechanism for holding them to that bar.

But that doesn't actually mean anything does it really? So if we follow this principle, the pharmacist can refuse the map because there is another pharmacy available, be it five/ten/fifteen miles away... It doesn't take into account that the patient does not drive, or has no access to public transport, or the money available to travel xyz miles away. It's a catch all, means nothing statement. I'm my case ( and this was years ago), the pharmacist refused the map but didn't check I could actually access the other pharmacy which was miles away whilst the clocks steadily ticking... I was fortunate and managed to get a lift but for those that cant, what happens then? It's extremely negligent behaviour imo.

The General Pharmaceutical Council, who oversee pharmacists, have thought through how to balance patient and pharmacists rights. I think they’ve done a great job. From their guidelines on religion, personal values and belief:

Pharmacy professionals have the right to practise in line with their religion, personal values or beliefs as long as they act in accordance with equalities and human rights law and make sure that person-centred care is not compromised…If a pharmacy professional is unwilling to provide a certain service, they should take steps to make sure the person asking for care is at the centre of their decision-making, so they can access the service they need in a timely manner and without hindrance.

Pharmacists found to have contravened these guidelines can be sanctioned.

YANBU the morning after pill is legal.

But if your refusal only affects 1 group - a protected characteristic group - that's still discrimination. I'm pretty sure thats the law - and only women need the MAP.

I think it is different because they are refusing a specific treatment to everyone. If they decided some people could have it but not others based on a prejudice it wouldn't be allowed.

I don’t disagree in principle but it’s not ideal and there should always be another option for the patient and if there’s not like if they are the only pharmacist in the village then imo their religious beliefs need to be set aside for the patient otherwise they shouldn’t be in that position of responsibility.

The point is it shouldn't be allowed.

All of the posts in support of the pharmacists on this thread are talking about respecting peoples beliefs and not being forced to do X because it's against their morals.

If they can get away with not providing care to women because of phony morals, I should be allowed to not provide care to rapists because that's against MY morals.

I fail to see how the 2 are different and yet legally discrimination against women is allowed but discrimination against rapists is not.

Strange thing to ask then not return within 10 pages

I live in the USA, and this is a BIG deal for us right now. For my own part, I don't think that anyone should be making decisions on anyone else's health care, IN ANY WAY, based on their own religious beliefs. That should be a strictly "best medical advice" choice, and with pharmacists, especially, the choice was made by a licensed physician, which trumps a licensed pharmacist.

YABU

.

Personally I think your comments are vile considering the personal stories PP have shared on this thread.

Pharmacists are health care professionals who should have a duty of care to their patients. This should not be happening in 2024.

This

They have a right not to dispense the MAP. It's established in their code of conduct they just have to signpost you to somewhere where it can be obtained.

Dispensing the MAP represents a tiny proportion of their job and there aren't that many places in the UK where it would be impossible to travel to another pharmacy in a timely manner and postal delivery is also available within 24 hours.