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

This! ^

And if things change AFTER you have started any given career, (like if you're a Pharmacist, and the MAP is now available at a pharmacy, and your religion forbids dispensing it,) then change careers! Can't fulfil your role properly anymore? Don't do that job anymore!

I used to know several people who were born in the 1940s or 1950s and worked in offices (in admin and secretarial,) and also in shops, in the 1970s and 1980s, and early 1990s. They worked with typewriters, and manual tills, and when computers became the norm, (late nineties/early noughties,) and also computerised tills (that are basically computers!) they couldn't use them OR they refused to learn to, and they wanted to stay with the old things.

They were pretty much told if they don't adapt they need to leave. I know this is a different scenario, but it's similar. People going into a career or job that has certain things/criteria, and things change, and they won't/can't adapt to it. If they can't do the job properly anymore, then they need to leave, and move into another job. And that includes Pharmacists ...

Pharmacists who run their own practice who REFUSE certain meds - like the MAP - because of their religion, need reporting to the General Pharmaceutical Council. They should not be in the job if they can't fulfil the role properly.

Tbh, I'm not sure that companies are accepting of pharmacists refusing to dispense things either. If there is another pharmacist on the premises and it has no impact on the business because they can do the dispensing of MAP then they may not care. If they lose money they will although it will depend on how easy it is to get pharmacists to work for them. Telling customers the MAP isn't in stock probably isn't a huge problem but refusing to dispense the contraceptive pill and telling the customer why would mean the pharmacist stops being employed. I bet the pharmacists who have done this have been young and naive.

I don’t think in 2024 we should be blindly accepting this is what I’m saying.

It shouldn’t be that women are denied these medications, which can have a huge impact on their life as many have shared on this thread, for a reason that is not even logical but we need to just accept that “because religion”.

You do realise I’m talking about the broader principle, not pharmacists specifically? Anyway they currently have legal protection and the shortage of pharmacists means it’s unlikely to change any time soon.

Not really.

I'm vegan. If I decided as a pharmacist I wouldn't dispense any medication that contains an animal product (gelatine capsules, milk proteins in medicines, numerous other items) do you think my employer would go 'oh okay then, that's your right'? No, they obviously wouldn't.

YANBU. It's honestly one of those really awful loopholes nobody has thought to bother closing.

Around 20yr ago my best friend and I needed to get the morning after pill for her after a condom broke. We went to Boots, where it was free at that time, and the pharmacist decline to give it based on their religious beliefs, and said there was nobody else available who could. They 'helpfully' advised that we go to the supermarket across the road.

We went there, and they were charging £26 for it. We didn't have the money. So she went without. Thankfully she didn't end up pregnant but I have thought ever since how easily that could have happened.

Any pharmacist who behaves like this has shown they're not fit to be a chemist to begin with. To lack the intellect to realise that the MAP isn't an abortion pill, it's a pill that can prevent conception, is quite staggering considering the training they go through.

I heavily encourage anyone who experiences this to publicly complain about the chemist and pharmacist online wherever you can. Yes, they're allowed to do this, but chemists will stop employing pharmacists whose actions attract negative reviews if they get enough of them.

A private company can't be forced to supply something they don't want to supply.

No. So I would not be a pharmacist if I felt this way.

You missed my point. It’s nothing to do with making sense to you or me. You or I may have some moral objection to something that appears totally bonkers to the rest of the world, we should still expect to have that respected.

The condom argument is irrelevant @WarshipRocinante. You don’t need the involvement of a pharmacist to buy condoms.

Well actually it does matter when it’s having a negative impact on someone and stopping them getting the medication they need.

I think this should be challenged - it doesn’t even make sense. I don’t agree with (but I understand) not wanting to carry out abortions, but MAP and contraception pills are actively preventing the need for abortion.

Yeah… but when they refuse women the MAP and even the contraceptive pill, but still sell condoms then that is a problem. You’re taking control away from women and putting us in the situation of having to rely on a man to actually wear the condom because we couldn’t put prescription of the pill and we won’t be able to get the MAP if he refuses to
wear a condom.

You ever been almost about to have sex when you’ve told a guy to put on a condom and he has gotten angry? It’s a very scary and vulnerable place to be.

Women should be able to access any form of contraception from any healthcare provider and not be forced to rely on men wearing a condom.

It doesn’t really matter why anything is a moral issue for an individual. If it is it is. It’s not necessary to understand the reason for someone’s views to respect their right to them.

But how does emergency contraception go against anyone’s morals? Unless they also disagree with condoms and all the other contraceptions. I’d agree that no one should be forced to participate in an abortion, including dispensing the abortion pill in the early weeks. But the MAP does nothing is a pregnancy has already happened. So what’s the issue?

I’d be curious is she is strict about other aspects of her religion? Most religions say no sex before marriage, did she wait for marriage? Then there are dietary restrictions, specific sabbath days, fasting etc. I tend to find that most religious people who stick to the rules about abortion or emergency contraception tend to ignore quite a few of the other rules.

Agree! And I’ve told her so. We’ve had many very heated discussions about it over the years. She argues that she can’t be discriminated against because of her religion when it comes to choosing a profession. I argue it’s the exact same discrimination she’s dishing out to other women.

I have a moral issue with rapists and child abusers.

I am not allowed, as an advanced practice Nurse, to refuse to treat people of this nature.

Some bullshit about everyone being entitled to my care and it being my job and to leave my personal beliefs at the door.

So why are misogynistic pharmacists allowed to bring their nonsense beliefs into women's Healthcare? I say nonsense because the MAP is not an abortive drug, so I call into question their pharmacy knowledge. There is no reason not to dispense it other than you want to control women.

Oh, yes, there it is.

Bullshit.

I think that’s way too extreme. Dispensing one medication is a tiny element of a pharmacist’s job and nobody’s going to suffer because the odd gynaecologist won’t perform surgical abortions when the majority will. It’s crazy to expect people to make career choices on the basis of a miniscule part of the job.

I do wonder if the reason for the intolerance in our secular society is because it’s seen as a religious choice rather than one of conscience. I don’t think there’d be nearly so much pushback if someone said something doesn’t align with their moral compass so they’d rather not do it.

They're not doing this off their own bat.

It is long-standing, explicit NHS policy and it means they can hold these jobs with the conscience clause (which is defined and has not "crept" in the decades it has been in existence - since the 1960s I think)

Yes, NHS in each area also has a duty to ensure the full range of services is available, so no patient should be left high and dry.

As an aside, there's a growing shortage of pharmacists (people are beginning to find that dispensing services are shorter hours or some cases they close over midday because lunch breaks cannot be covered; and its getting harder to find locums to cover holidays).

So a separate thing to take from this thread is that it's going to become commoner to have to wait for pharmacy services (just at the time the government is encouraging us to use them more) or to find them closed.

She’s Catholic and will find ways to justify using contraception because that suits her! It infuriates me how she cherry picks which bits of her religion she follows but has arbitrary power as a pharmacist to deny other women their bodily autonomy. She’s my childhood best friend and we’ve had many heated discussions about it over the years.

I agree with you in one sense, but I also disagree. I feel that someone's freedom to express their religion ends where that expression impinges on the life of another person. Don't want to dispense the MAP? Don't be a pharmacist. Don't want to work in abortion care? Don't go near Gynie. Many other career paths are available.

I have no issue with someone refusing to prescribe MAP so long as there is another colleague present who can. I don't see how it's more ethical for a woman to potentially have to go through an abortion because they couldn't access MAP in time.

a woman's rights should trump everything else

I disagree. Nobody’s rights should trump everything else.

It’s perfectly legal to open a vegetarian restaurant, or to stock whatever one wishes in one’s own shop.

Pharmacies are businesses. If the NHS wants to contract pharmacies, or specific pharmacies, to supply the MAP whenever there is any pharmacist on the premises, then the NHS will have to do that. Or the GPhC would need to change its code, but I can’t see that happening.

Or, of course, the DHSC could change the law on supervision in pharmacies and allow pharmacy technicians to dispense (anything, not just the MAP) and to supply under PGDs, which is what is about to/ has just happened. Quite what the consequences of this deregulation will be on public safety will become clear in time.

Essentially, every woman has the right to request the MAP (or any other treatment) but it is wrong to force any healthcare professional to provide it if they have an ethical objection. The problem is how to ensure equitable access.

Jeez, is this shit still happening? This happened to me years ago evenin was denied map, due to the pharmacists religious beliefs. I was young and naive in those days and didn't question it, but thinking it's still happening is outrageous. The guardian needs to do an expose on this to force change. Honestly, a woman's rights should trump everything else - it leaves women in such a vulnerable spot.

I was once refused a blood test by an NHS nurse at my doctors surgery. When I arranged the appointment I explained what it was for - to be tested to go on the bone marrow donation register. The nurse was all set then once she realised what it was for stopped and said this was something she can't do, but she did go and find a colleague who could. I didn't push for an explanation.