Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Pharmacist's religious/moral objection to emergency contraception

355 replies

lilly0 · 07/02/2018 01:59

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 ?

OP posts:
EmpireVille · 08/02/2018 16:40

Oh yes, some cultures are definitely misogynistic.

But the pharmacist not dispensing the MAP is not automatically a misogynist. They might be I suppose but not dispensing the MAP isn't in itself misogynistic.

Gileswithachainsaw · 08/02/2018 16:42

Yes it is. It's hating the women enough to prefer her to go through with an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for daring to have sex than to prevent it.

Only a person who thinks so little of women or brought up to believe they are lesser beings would do that

EmpireVille · 08/02/2018 16:47

I think you're projecting your own insight there.

Gileswithachainsaw · 08/02/2018 16:50

So a religious objection is not a mysoginistic objection despite misogyny being the very root of religion?

It's just my insight Hmm

EmpireVille · 08/02/2018 17:28

So say you.

Ergo, yes.

perfectstorm · 08/02/2018 17:36

They might be I suppose but not dispensing the MAP isn't in itself misogynistic.

Yes it is. It's deciding you have the right to determine what happens within a woman's body. Controlling reproduction is one of the most inherently misogynist things possible.

And if you cannot dispense contraception, then you are not qualified to work as a pharmacist. Any more than someone who cannot provide a bed for a gay couple to share can work as a B&B owner.

The fact you aren't allowed to refuse service to a gay couple on the grounds of your religious beliefs, but you can to women on same grounds... yes, that's misogynist. It's rather weird to deny that tbh. I mean, by definition it only affects women.

Iprefercoffeetotea · 08/02/2018 17:44

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

Me neither. And that means you can't refuse to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a pregnant woman, either. Regardless of what you think of them (and they may be buying for someone else anyway).

If your moral compass doesn't allow you to serve the public in a certain way you don't take a job that requires you to do so.

Graphista · 08/02/2018 17:45

"Many of those that refuse are women following their religion" women can be misogynist too - Google internalised misogyny.

"Yes it is. It's hating the women enough to prefer her to go through with an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for daring to have sex than to prevent it." Hear hear!

"Controlling reproduction is one of the most inherently misogynist things possible." Absolutely

Iprefercoffeetotea · 08/02/2018 17:45

It's amazing how all these exemptions only affect women isn’t it

Yes can anyone point to a case where a man has been refused condoms?

Dungeondragon15 · 08/02/2018 17:53

It's not the same thing as a business selling something to heterosexual but not gay couples. They are not providing a service for one person but not another. They are just not providing the service at all which would be similar to a B&B owner deciding that they are not going to rent out room to anyone.

I don't think this is a straightforward issue as while I agree a pharmacist is in the wrong job if they don't want to dispense the MAP, you can't insist a private business sells something it doesn't want to sell it. You also can't state that it is guilty of discrimination if the product it chooses not to sell is only bought by women. It is only discrimination if it does sell the product to some people but not other.

Shona52 · 08/02/2018 17:54

Surely he could lose his license for this? Personal I would be a complaint into boots over it. Could you imagine if that was a young girl and the consequences of his actions!!! Appalling treatment and in this day and age

Dungeondragon15 · 08/02/2018 17:54

Yes can anyone point to a case where a man has been refused condoms?

A man would be refused condoms if a shop didn't sell them though!

Graphista · 08/02/2018 17:56

Except the REASON he's refusing to sell it is down to HIS PERSONAL objections - not business reasons (the business DOES want to sell this product - so not serving his employers properly either) and his personal objections are rooted in a misogynistic culture.

TeresaEdPsych · 08/02/2018 17:57

Completely agree. Pharmacist should be implementing Boots policy not his own!

perfectstorm · 08/02/2018 17:57

It's not the same thing as a business selling something to heterosexual but not gay couples. They are not providing a service for one person but not another. They are just not providing the service at all which would be similar to a B&B owner deciding that they are not going to rent out room to anyone.

Nonsense. They aren't refusing service by, um, refusing service? That's pretzel logic. They are providing the full range of medical care to everyone except women, when seeking to manage their fertility. That's discriminating against a group by gender.

It's like people who think it's fine to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy, but outrageous and shocking to try to make organ donation mandatory, because bodily autonomy should always be the right of the individual, even if deaths are caused thereby. That thinking quite literally affords a corpse more rights than a woman.

Graphista · 08/02/2018 17:58

"A man would be refused condoms if a shop didn't sell them though!"

I very much doubt this pharmacist or others like him would refuse to sell condoms to a man if requested EVEN THOUGH it's highly likely that his religion ALSO considers contraception sinful.

Dungeondragon15 · 08/02/2018 18:03

Except the REASON he's refusing to sell it is down to HIS PERSONAL objections - not business reasons (the business DOES want to sell this product - so not serving his employers properly either) and his personal objections are rooted in a misogynistic culture.

I don't think the reason for not selling makes a difference. Business have the right to decide what they wish to sell and that includes chemist shops. If the pharmacist is working for an employer who does want to sell the MAP then the chances are that they won't be employed for much longer (I hope not anyway).

blaukop · 08/02/2018 18:08

Whatever your religious persuasion, it should never ever colour your duty towards the public.

perfectstorm · 08/02/2018 18:09

Incidentally, the labelling of the pill is wrong. The science indicates that it doesn't prevent implantation, though that was an original and now disproven theory on mechanism. But the labelling is yet to catch up.

There's a good article on this from the New York Times.

It's a last-ditch contraceptive. It has no abortificent function.

Dungeondragon15 · 08/02/2018 18:09

Nonsense. They aren't refusing service by, um, refusing service? That's pretzel logic. They are providing the full range of medical care to everyone except women, when seeking to manage their fertility. That's discriminating against a group by gender.

They won't necessarily be providing the full range of medical care though. As private businesses, it is dependent on what they want to provide. They don't have provide any NHS services if they don't want to (if they don't have a contract with the NHS).

katseyes7 · 08/02/2018 18:10

Not exactly the same thing, but when l was still at school, l went to the doctor about my periods. l was flooded every month and used to faint at school. Mortifying when you're 15/16. l went to see a GP at my surgery, expecting to be given the pill. Trust me, l was not the type to be sexually active at that age. Looking at my school photos, nobody would have gone near me. The female doctor refused to give me the pill as she was a Catholic.
Fast forward 20 years, l was married. Taking antibiotics for a chest infection, and we were using condoms as you're advised that antibiotics can affect the efficacy of the pill. Usual story, condom split, so being sensible, l went to the pharmacy for the morning after pill. l was given it, but was (what l can only describe as) interrogated and made to feel like some kind of slapper. My husband was not amused and l was mortified.

Graphista · 08/02/2018 18:11

"I don't think the reason for not selling makes a difference" you're REALLY reaching now - even the pharmacist would say it does - or else he wouldn't have refused.

Enployer may not know - all the more reason for op to complain in my opinion.

Dungeondragon15 · 08/02/2018 18:14

"I don't think the reason for not selling makes a difference" you're REALLY reaching now - even the pharmacist would say it does - or else he wouldn't have refused.

What I mean is that it doesn't make any difference to whether a business is acting lawfully. A business can decide not to sell something full stop. It is only discrimination if they are selling something but only selling it to some people. It isn't discrimination if they choose not to sell to anyone.

perfectstorm · 08/02/2018 18:15

Business have the right to decide what they wish to sell and that includes chemist shops.

There are two problems with that.

The first is that pharmacists have a contract with the NHS to dispense medications on prescription, so they are not independent. They work to a contract. They are in effect franchised to sell NHS funded drugs.

The second is that you can't refuse service to specific groups. If you refuse contraception that solely affects women, that's a problem. It would not fly if the refusal concerned gay people, or black people - and bigots have used the Bible to justify both. Religious freedom is not the freedom to oppress others in line with your own beliefs. The MAP is lawful and available on prescription. If you choose to work as a pharmacist, then you shouldn't get to decide what drugs customers may take based on your views. Especially when those views affect one class, and that class a disadvantaged one to begin with.

Graphista · 08/02/2018 18:16

Kats I understand why you didn't being young, probably lacking confidence and knowledge but I believe that GP was in breach of their professional obligations in not prescribing the pill as a medical treatment.

Did they prescribe/treat with something else or were you just fobbed off?

Sorry that happened to you (both situations) totally unacceptable!

On the rare occasions I've needed to access map I've been asked the legally required questions/told the legally required info - which has changed over the years. But all 3 times the pharmacists were like Blush🙄 'Sorry but legally I have to go through the spiel'. 2 male 1 female all professional, synpathetic and discreet.