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

Thank you for the clarifying! At least it’s consistent for once.

I guess the same thing they’d have to do if the pharmacy did dispense it but it was genuinely out of stock?

People who only use pharmacies on an ad hoc basis seem to think they’re an Aladdin’s cave of medication & everything is always there 100% of the time; it’s not. As a regular medication user, I’ve regularly had the choice of either waiting 48-72hrs for my medication (worse since brexit & often longer if there’s a weekend in the middle) or getting a copy of my prescription & trying my luck elsewhere i.e. literally phoning around myself to see who has it & then travelling to wherever; having to do that is not unique to MAP users.

NO ONE WAITS 4 DAYS FOR MAP TO BE DELIVERED ONLINE, IT’S ALWAYS NEXT DAY DELIVERY!

Sorry to shout but it’s really irresponsible of you to be spouting incorrect information like that, a woman might read what you’ve written, think it’s correct & then when they need MAP, not even bother looking online as they think it will be too late by then. There’s no point advocating about women’s rights if you’re then going to feed them incorrect information which can also cause them harm.

I'm not sure that anyone has the "legal right" to obtain a particular medication from a particular supply. The NHS for example, refuses quite a lot on the grounds of cost.

Equality and diversity is always pushed… until it’s women who are being negatively impacted. Then we’re told to just go somewhere else because our right to legally obtainable medication isn’t as high on the equality list.

You really need to brush up on your equality and diversity training

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/03/ethical-veganism-is-a-belief-protected-by-law-tribunal-rules

They do have a duty of care to the patient though and if think if someone ended up coming to harm because they couldn't access alternative health care in time they would probably be in trouble.

I agree it is a problem and as I said earlier, I think pharmacists who don't want to dispense certain medications should choose not to work in areas where this will have a big impact on patients. They don't have to work in chemist shops at all and if they do they should work where there are plenty of other chemist shops nearby.

I'm not naive at all. You're naive if you think employers would tell the pharmacist why they no longer want to use their services. Many pharmacists are self employed (as locums) so they would just stop using their services. Same with anyone who has worked somewhere less than two years as an employee. No reason needs to be given. Obviously if someone has worked there for longer than two years it would be more difficult but they would probably get rid of them before it got to that stage if they were refusing to dispense the contraceptive pill and there wasn't another pharmacist on the premises to supply it.

What I said is not 'vile'. It's an unpleasant thought, but it's true that legally it's not the pharmacist's responsibility, which is the only point I'm making. In reality if someone declared a dangerous situation you'd hope a HCP would help them, order them a taxi, call the police, whatever is appropriate.

If the patient can be signposted to another service then I don't see why it's an issue.

If we keep dehumanising the people who 'serve' us for want of a better phrase, then we're just going to have less people doing it, and we already have shortages as it is.

To remove a pharmacist from their role because they don't do one aspect of it is shortsighted, they're then not available to do any of the role, or to even signpost to another service which means that we're in a worse position than a pharmacist who doesn't do one aspect but gives information as to where it can be accessed.

Just seems a little controlling to expect people to put their beliefs aside for someone else when alternatives are available to access, all be it with a little bit of inconvenience. It's not really a big deal, and they could have to go elsewhere for a whole host of reasons - no stock, no pharmacist on duty, pharmacist already has too many people to see and prescriptions to dispense to fit someone else in that day.

And I have had to seek an alternative GP for a termination because my GP had religious beliefs that meant they couldn't provide me with the treatment I requested - they ensured I got a timely appointment with a Dr who could. I made two trips to the surgery instead of one, a bit inconvenient but it didn't stop me getting that treatment.

They shouldn't be working in those professions if their beliefs prevent them from prescribing/carrying out things that are legally allowed in this country. It's hard enough for most women to pluck up the courage to get the morning after pill, arrange an abortion etc without being judged by the healthcare professional who is supposed to be helping you. Are they going to refuse vasectomies? Refuse to treat gay men, no, I bet they aren't because it's always about persecuting women with these people. Do they know the history of all the medication they prescribe, how it's been derived, tested etc how do they know any of that isn't against their beliefs? I'm all for people believing whatever they want, it's a free country but if they can't leave those beliefs behind whilst they are at work then they shouldn't be doing the job!

Wow. 10 pages and still no context..

Vile.

You are not allowed because the policy covers the provision of specified services, not anything about the patient.

There is no reason to question their pharmacy knowledge as the exemption covers both contraception and termination services

Is it 4 days? Asda, Lloyds and many more offer Next Day Delivery.

Speechless. I am literally speechless. Do you not care - even SLIGHTLY - about the rights and health of women? Not even a TINY bit?!

Exactly this! To hell with the rights and health and welfare of WOMEN eh? As long as people have their religion protected!

Come off it, this can't be right. Something needs to change.

Use other forms of contraception? Get a bus? Get a taxi? Take some personal responsibility basically. I know there will be women in awful abusive situations who have no other options, but that's not the pharmacist's fault or responsibility I'm afraid.

Well what exactly are WOMEN meant to do then, if the one and only pharmacist for 12-15 miles won't dispense the MAP?! Order it from the internet and wait 4 days?! I despair for humanity!

Any employer who sacked someone based on them exercising their rights due to protected characteristics would be facing a lawsuit and would lose far more money than the pittance they might lose out on for not supplying contraception. Sounds like you're the naive one.

Perfectly cognisant of equality laws. But there are exceptions, and this should be one of them.

I think veganism is a protected belief, anyway.

But in any event, medical care before beliefs.

I totally agree OP. If you have a problem with contraception or abortion, don't be a pharmacist. Restricting access to medication simply shouldn't be allowed.

Funnily enough, their beliefs never seem to extend to restricting access to medication for men.

Some of you seriously need to brush up on your equality and diversity training. Religion is a protected belief. Veganism/use of typewriters (wtf) aren't.

Given the General Pharmaceutical Council says that they can refuse as long as they direct the patient to where they can get it, there would be no point reporting it. They don't have to dispense any prescriptions if they don't want to let alone MAP. If they are the owner of a pharmacy what they do and don't dispense for the NHS will depend on their contract and it is their choice as to whether they sign up.

Pharmacists who run their own practice who REFUSE certain meds - like the MAP - because of their religion, need reporting to the General Pharmaceutical Council

What would that achieve when they have a legal exemption? A business owner can stock exactly what they choose within the law.