Pharmacist's religious/moral objection to emergency contraception

[lilly0]

A while ago I went into Boots to buy the MAP. The pharmacist on duty wouldn't prescribe to me for religious reasons but pointed another pharmacy to me no biggy I thought but then I thought about it. Why would a pharmacist object to emergency contraception it isn't an abortion pill they don't seem to mind selling condoms and dispensing the pill ?
Is there any reason not to sell the MAP ?

What happens if the pharmacist in one store turns you away and gives you a different one to try 3 miles away? And when you arrive they also refuse it and try to send you back to the original chemist?
Technically they have fulfilled their role to tell you if an alternative possible supplier, but that doesn't help the customer at all.

If one were a Hindu one should not really train to be a butcher.

And yes that could mean they end up carrying a rapists baby

What sickening terminology. Is that baby worth less than any other?

That should not happen though because they do not have the right to refuse to dispense the MAP unless they can refer the patient to somewhere nearby where it will be dispensed.

Well maybe not, but I bet alot of them do it if its against their bloody religion. And my point earlier was even if they are not allowed to do that, but do it anyway a 16 or 17 year old girl is hardly going to stand there in the middle of boots and argue with them that fact, is she? Thats if she even knows about it. She will most likely just leave.

This happened to me before Christmas. I ended up having to terminate a baby i dream of but can't make a reality because my last pregnancy nearly killed me. When I feel strong enough I'm going to complain. I don't know if the MAP would have worked anyway but the delay in finding another pharmacy took me over the 12 hour window where it is most effective.

As I suspected then. No such thing as only being able to refuse if another pharmacy is within walking distance.

Well, obviously they are able to refuse if they don't mind risking their job or getting into trouble with their regulatory body.

Dungeon yes because a 16yo who has just been sexually assaulted by her stepfather or friend of the family is totally going to make a complaint to the relevant regulatory body. Right after she's had the abortion she now needs because, you know, the MAP is time-sensitive and so one pharmacist denying her might well make the difference between pregnancy or not.

Seriously, have any of you ever been to a rural town in Devon or Cornwall on a Sunday afternoon? No, there are not multiple 24h pharmacies open. Yes, there will be only one pharmacist on duty for 10 miles around.

Doesn’t sound like the regulatory body would give a shit. They’d be much more likely to be supporting their right to their beliefs.

Well maybe not, but I bet alot of them do it if its against their bloody religion. And my point earlier was even if they are not allowed to do that, but do it anyway a 16 or 17 year old girl is hardly going to stand there in the middle of boots and argue with them that fact, is she? Thats if she even knows about it. She will most likely just leave.

If they do then they would be even less likely to follow a rule that they must dispense MAP even if it was against their religous/moral code. They would just find a reason not to do it.

Dungeon yes because a 16yo who has just been sexually assaulted by her stepfather or friend of the family is totally going to make a complaint to the relevant regulatory body. Right after she's had the abortion she now needs because, you know, the MAP is time-sensitive and so one pharmacist denying her might well make the difference between pregnancy or not.

That's not the fault of the rule itself though is it. The same problem would occur even if pharmacist were told that they couldn't object to dispensing the MAP. A rule/law can only be enforced if the regulatory bodies are aware of the fact that it has been broken.

I think with the ambiguity of the new standards and the fact that pharmacy has become far more competitive as an industry we could may well see a positive change going forward.

There are 1000 + surplus pharmacy graduates per year and even securing regular locum work can be challenging for a newly qualified pharmacist after they have completed their pre reg year. Taking this and the new standards into consideration many new pharmacists will want to be accredited to provide as many services as possible to make themselves more employable.

If a person doesn't want a baby it's certainly not up to anyone else to decide a "value"

Surely if a pharmacist's beliefs were so strong and they had such a sense of personal integrity, they would also be unable to fulfil their duty to point a woman in the direction of a willing colleague or another chemist, since that would also make them complicit?
Why not just get over themselves in the first place and dispense the MAP themselves?
It smacks of just being obstructive and judgmental to me.

Pharmacists who don't want to supply ... always get another pharmacist or explain clearly where another pharmacist can be found

I get the rationale of a lot of what you're saying Wombat - even though it's not my view - but I really can't agree with this; I've been involved in just too many complaints where, instead of signposting an alternative, a pharmacist has simply said "we don't do that" and turned away

Nor can I agree that locums in particular will only choose to work near "an alternative", or that they'll necessarily avoid training in a contentious area. IME, too many will go where the work is and only then declare objections

As so often in these cases, moral grandstanding sometimes operates in direct proportion to the extent to which it's indulged

IME, too many will go where the work is and only then declare objections

They won't get asked back though which could mean losing a lot of future work if the chemist shop is a chain.. Considering that there is a surplus of locums they can't really afford to do that.

Should not be doing the job - complain to the employer

Exactly, Dungeon - they don't get asked back, which is why I mentioned earlier that these "strongly held principles" can become rather more flexible if it means losing work

And sassy's very valid point about surplus pharmacists shows why the comments about a stampede to leave the profession are just outright scaremongering

I thought this was no biggie?

Care to expand on that @paddington68

What if a pharmacist refused to give a lady a morning after pill because he thought she was Muslim and thought she shouldn't be taking it and he was of a religion or opinion that was allowed to take it? Then what?

I don't think anyone should refuse to sell something to someone because they don't agree with it.

It's like a vegan working in a butchers and refusing to sell sausages. You just wouldn't work there would you.

(I chose Muslim as I googled what religion does not allow the MPA and it brought back Muslim, there may well be other religions that don't allow it but this was what the search threw back and I didn't read every single link)

I don't think anyone should refuse to sell something to someone because they don't agree with it.

Private businesses have the right to sell whatever they want to sell. A vegan could work in a butchers shop and not sell meet if the business owner agreed (although they would presumably only do that if they sold non-meet products too).

non-meat

Refusing on ethical grounds to sell meat, to dock dogs' tails, or to audit a particular company's accounts is not comparable to refusing to provide a vital, time-sensitive healthcare product in a setting where that product is typically and legally available, and where the recipient may already be distressed.

I suspect most attitudes of tolerance to religion-related MAP refusals would fade once religion intruded too far into your own healthcare. Where's the line? How tolerant would you be about dying of sepsis after being refused a medical termination because the foetus you're miscarrying still has a heartbeat? Or being denied a blood transfusion? Or calling an ambulance, only to find the paramedic believes pain can be prayed away? (But, don't worry: you can always call another ambulance and they'll almost definitely help you.)

Extreme examples - but, why not? The principle's the same: tolerance for religious beliefs in healthcare superseding the patient/client's need for specific treatment. If you're saying that only applies for selected low-risk, non-urgent situations, then how desperate does the situation have to be before religious beliefs are shown the door? And who decides? And why do women's reproductive rights always seem to fall on the 'please assert your unsolicited religious beliefs upon my healthcare' side?

I suspect most attitudes of tolerance to religion-related MAP refusals would fade once religion intruded too far into your own healthcare. Where's the line? How tolerant would you be about dying of sepsis after being refused a medical termination because the foetus you're miscarrying still has a heartbeat? Or being denied a blood transfusion? Or calling an ambulance, only to find the paramedic believes pain can be prayed away? (But, don't worry: you can always call another ambulance and they'll almost definitely help you.)

I wouldn't care if my treatment wasn't compromised. In most of the situations you describe it would be though so not really similar. The pharmacist is not supposed to compromise patient care as if they don't want to dispense MAP they should refer. If they are not doing that or are sending patients miles away at cost and inconvenience then it shouldn't be and isn't tolerated.

I suspect most attitudes of tolerance to religion-related MAP refusals would fade once religion intruded too far into your own healthcare. Where's the line?

Good point there. Wherever it is, it should be clearly defined....