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

It is a bit different as pharmacists have a duty of care towards patients. So okay to refuse if the customer can walk down the street and buy it elsewhere but if the next chemist is miles away, the patient can't get there that day and therefore is unable to access the MAP in time to prevent pregnancy it is a big problem. Assuming the pharmacist is not the owner their employer would be very unimpressed too.

This. ^ This stupid, narrow-minded, ignorant remark is boiling my piss to be honest. 'Just go to another pharmacy!' Just assuming everyone has got multiple pharmacies within pissing distance that they can just trot to at the drop of a hat! As I said, if the pharmacist in MY town refused someone any meds, the next closest pharmacist is 12 miles away. And there is NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TO IT.

So much ignorance, and so many stupid remarks from a few people on this thread! SOME PEOPLE ONLY HAVE ONE PHARMACY IN THEIR TOWN. (And many of them don't have another one for MILES!) Capiche?!

YANBU. 15 years ago MAP (first and only time I've ever had to research it as I'd only previously had one sexual partner) was supposedly available to me via a google search at a nearby clinic. I was raped and the GP automatically assumed the reason I was seeking MAP was a result of consensual sex. It was never questioned by the Doctor that non consensual sex could possibly be the reason. I was told due to religious reasons (Muslim) they wouldn't prescribe MAP. I eventually reached the next available pharmacy (via bus as I had no driver's license at that time) on my next day off from work a couple of days later. Unfortunately by this time I had fallen pregnant (for the first and only time in my life) and was forced to have an abortion.

During this time, I unfortunately contracted HPV from my rapist and had a series of colposcopies indicating I needed LLETZ treatment to remove abnormal cells. I actually had a consultant refuse to perform LLETZ as I hadn't had 'my children yet' and there's a chance LLETZ can cause premature delivery. He insisted I spoke to the man who dropped me off at my appointment (my now fiance) before he would perform the LLETZ treatment. I stood my ground and whilst he did go through with the treatment, he didn't allow enough time for the anaesthetic to kick in according to the supporting nurse, and it was bloody painful!

One pharmacy in our town won't provide the MAP, but the pharmacist that owns it and works there has been a pharmacist since long before the MAP was made available through pharmacies.

I understand that technically they aren't doing anything wrong and also I understand that it's a slippery slope potentially but I hate that my life is inconvenienced by someone else's religious beliefs. If they personally don't agree with MAP, that's fine, I'm not asking them to take it! My taking the MAP has no effect on their lives whatsoever.

I've had no need for it for at least 10 years but before that I was refused service for it once, maybe twice.

No. The ruling was that they could refuse to make a cake with wording that celebrated gay marriage. This was in contrast with if they'd refused to make a cake at all because they thought gay people were dreadful sinners.

So, pharmacists can refuse to supply the MAP (writing on the cake), but couldn't refuse to serve women.

I wasn't suggesting a rule change. I was suggesting the pharmacist themselves should chose not to work in an a shop if it is the only one for miles around if they don't want to dispense certain drugs. There are many areas pharmacists can work in. They don't have to work in a chemist shop at all let alone in one where there are no others for miles around.

I thought they went through this with the gay cake and said they had to make the gay cake? Or am I incorrect.

If so I don’t see how pharmacists can’t dispense.

Ref this earlier comment:
"I respect your assertion that this is not a problem in Britain (given the long history of no legal abortion in Northern Ireland, I don't want to say UK)."

In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, abortion was permitted in restricted circumstances before the 1967 Act in Great Britain widened the availability of abortion to allow it upon request by the woman, provided two doctors signed and certified it was for legally specified reasons.

To clarify on the above, I gather from what you've written that you ARE in favour of protected spaces for females only?

The point I am making is that this belief in basic biology is rapidly becoming the 'wrong' opinion to hold in many official and corporate bodies and organisations.

Today, it is a religious person's 'outrageous refusal' to prescribe the MAP; tomorrow it is anybody who 'outrageously refuses to accept' that a male-bodied person who says that he is/has a certificate bearing a legal fiction is female, because of 'some hateful ideological aversion to accept what the rest of society knows is correct'.

Yanbu I was denied the map years ago based on the pharmasists religious reasons

Luckily for me there were 4 boots stores close to that one but it could be a huge issue when the chemist shop is the only one nearby / convenient etc

@wombat15 thats a good point and clearly the answer (should have thought of it myself 😁). It would rely on impractical rule changes though - eg if you refuse to dispense MAP because of moral objections etc and there is another pharmacy a few streets away which you can direct people to then that pharmacy closes for some reason, you can't be forced out of a job? What constitutes a reasonable distance for women who need it to travel to a oharmacy stocking the MAP? What if that judgement for someone in a rural community relies on a bus route to the nearest multi-pharmacy town but the bus route then closes or becomes impractical for the patient. It's not something the pharmacist has control over and it shouldnt force them out of a job.

Like you, I would hope a pharmacist who won't dispense contraceptive pills or MAP would choose not to set up shop in a community with no other pharmacists available but the decision on where to live and work is complicated and people's value judgements and priorities are different.

I believe in free access to all forms of legal health care and am pro-choice but unless society changes to be less respectful of religious freedom in general (which is probably not a society I want to live in even as an atheist) the idea of banning pharmacists from the profession for this is just not going to gain any traction.

Better access to healthcare and more healthcare options along with improved, more accessible and cheaper public transport will help this issue in a way where both sides 'win' as well as many others, but that's an expensive, complicated long term fix which people / this government don't want to invest in.

It really isn't. Take a step back and look at all the people on this thread saying that people should simply not be allowed to decline to do something to which they have a genuine moral objection.

You may be privileged enough not to have been affected yourself, but some women effectively are being denied health-care - when the only facility or provider available/offered includes biological males. Many women - whether because of their religious convictions (again) or maybe past trauma at the hands of men will then see no alternative but to self-exclude from the healthcare that should be readily available for their needs, but isn't.

How do you think it helped the healthcare of the poor woman who was raped by a male on her ward whom she was repeatedly gaslit that he was actually a woman, and thus she was 'obviously lying' about being raped?

How many women and girls are getting UTIs and other health complications - not to mention having to forego their basic human rights - because they are purposely avoiding using the toilet in public, as no female-only facilities exist for them?

Once you start climbing the ladder of forcing people to act against their own clear moral objections, that ladder can go on forever. You can't order people to stay on for the first three rungs, calling them ridiculous and batting away their concerns, and then suddenly stop when you reach the fourth rung that involves something that you morally object to.

Wait until the other MAPs (nothing to do with the morning-after pill) start to gain traction with their 'cause', and then you (and me, and many of us) are the one with the moral objection to accepting them wholeheartedly, who is nevertheless told to stop being stupid/petty/ridiculous/unprofessional/bigoted/discriminatory.

If you're self-employed, you can refuse to do anything that most other people doing the same job would do if you want to, for whatever reason.

If you own a paint shop, you can completely refuse to stock or supply green paint.

If you run a cafe, you can choose to close at lunch-time.

If you're a pharmacist and you object on moral grounds, you can refuse to prescribe the MAP.

As with any other business, customers are entirely at liberty to go elsewhere instead.

As for people saying 'but what if you're the only pharmacist in the village', it's no different in principle from if you're the only cafe in the village and you close at lunch-time. If a business doesn't provide what you need/want, it's just the same as the many villages that don't have any of that kind of business in the first place.

Nurses are able to have a conscientious objection though. Need to inform their manager, colleagues etc. Mainly relates to abortion and procedures to achieve conception and pregnancy. An emergency situation is excluded from this.

I think it up to the pharmacist to not to work where they are the only pharmacist in town if they don't want to dispense it. They should be the ones inconvenienced not everyone else.

Wow I’m shocked at this.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) says that nurses should practice in a “non-judgmental, holistic, caring, and sensitive and this includes avoiding assumptions, supporting social inclusion, recognizing individual choice, and acknowledging diversity”.

Non judgmental and recognising individual choice.

Does this not apply to pharmacists and doctors?!

Given the op posted this and disappeared, gave no indication that this ever happened to them or ever happens apart from in the heads of Daily Mail readers, suggests their just trying to whip up a bit of racial tension.

I believe in free access to the Pill etc but nobody who thinks otherwise can or should be forced to dispense it. Also, the range of a pharmacist's knowledge and skill is too wide and useful to society to bar them from the profession if they won't dispense it.

If the only pharmacist in town (or just the one attached to your GP surgery) won't dispense MAP, contraceptive pills etc, they should make that known to all GP surgeries in the local area so that arrangements can be made to deliver medication from elsewhere either to the surgery or to the patient's home. A poster in the window as well so all potential customers are aware. For time sensitive MAP etc where the woman should be able to get it over the counter and there is no other pharmacy nearby which stocks it, I honestly don't know the answer if she is unable to go elsewhere - maybe a similar mail order service publicised in universities / GP surgeries etc.

I’ve worked in pharmacy for over 25 years, in all that time I’ve only ever worked with 1 pharmacist who doesn’t supply the MAP.
If she’s on shift we tell customers we don’t have any in stock rather than getting in to the whole objection thing. Luckily there is another pharmacy less than 5 minutes walk from us who do prescribe it.
In all honesty though the bulk of our sales are on the weekends and she doesn’t work then, it’s actually pretty rare I have to refuse a sale.

The contract with the NHS probably doesn't state that they have to supply the contraceptive pill. I suspect a chemist shop owner would not employ a pharmacist who they knew wasn't going to dispense the pill though. I wonder if the people who are refusing are quite young.

I agree with this. It needs to be clear and obvious what they won't do - the potential customer should know in advance.

I also think it should be mandatory for the pharmacist to clearly advertise the nearest provider, again without the customer needing to ask, along with signposting for how to get help if special circumstances would prevent them using the alternative if it's not close by.

Many will tell the patient it is out of stock to avoid that.

I agree that they shouldn't become pharmacists if they have beliefs that they know will prevent them dispensing certain drugs. I do have sympathy if a drug becomes available while they are already pharmacists though e.g. in the 80s, some pharmacists were very unhappy when the morning after pill became available. The contraceptive pill has been available since the 60s though everyone who is currently a pharmacist knew they would be asked to dispense it when they started their training so very bad that a few don't.
Ultimately though if they work in a private practice it is up to them and their employer whether they dispense a drug although they do have to direct the patient to an alternative chemist if they aren't willing to provide.

That is very different because conversations would have taken place behind the scene that patient wouldn’t be aware of, and they would still receive the medical
treatment, so no harm done.

The difference is the Pharmacist refusing to prescribe medication means the patient would have to go somewhere else and be told “no” they can’t have their prescription. The shame and embarrassment around that isn’t ok.