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 ?

Dungeon the revised guidelines are here: www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/in_practice-_guidance_on_religion_personal_values_and_beliefs.pdf

It's a fudge of course, but the relevant bits seem to be these:

Pharmacy professionals have the right to practise in line with their religion, personal values or beliefs as long as they act in accordance with equalities and human rights law and make sure that person-centred care is not compromised
Pharmacy professionals must not discriminate against a person based on their own - or the person’s - religion, personal values or beliefs, or lack of religion or belief. They should be sensitive to cultural, social, religious and clinical factors and recognise that these can guide a person’s choices

It's true this has never been tested in court, but also interesting that a main focus of the objections concerns a group who are perhaps deemed less likely to fight back than some

How utterly convenient

person-centred care is not compromised
Pharmacy professionals must not discriminate against a person based on their own - or the person’s - religion, personal values or beliefs, or lack of religion or belief

I would consider that the pharmacist has gone against these guidelines.

I hope someone does take it to court.

They may not get training because of personal preference though. Also, pharmacists need training to sell the MAP so similar to GPS they can refuse on the grounds that they are not trained. Obviously they can't do this if they work for an employer but if independent it would be easy to avoid.

Sure, but there's a gulf between having to go on a course every 3 years, and a really basic set of training for a prescription. No GP can be trained to cover every possible condition a patient may present with in a primary care setting, and if they aren't trained in an area then it would fail the patient to seek to treat them... but all pharmacists can be trained to dispense the MAP fairly easily. Plenty of other drugs have more intensive requirements in terms of patient assessment.

And an independent pharmacist would still have the referral issue. In a small chemist with a sole staffer on duty, you'd sometimes struggle to comply with the very clearly stated need to balance your ethics with the need/right of a patient to obtain prompt and timely care. And the guidance is clear that if you can't do that, you aren't providing the necessary patient-centred care.

I hope someone does challenge this at some point. Be an interesting case, because of the competing rights aspect. I happen to be a Christian myself and I have friends who are fundamentalist Baptists, so they'd struggle with this. But that doesn't make it okay to force your beliefs on others, which is what this sometimes amounts to.

I had a Catholic gp prescribe it then tell me it was against her principals!

More simply: a teacher has person preference when choosing subject area, and that's all well and good. But I would side-eye any geography teacher whose Creationist beliefs meant that they refused to teach about fossil records or climate change. Their personal beliefs and preferences matter less than competent tuition for pupils.

I would've complained right then and there. Was there a supervisor/manager or someone else you could've talked to? If they advertise that you can get it there and they have it you should be able to get it! I'm glad you are writing to them to let them know what happened and I do hope that they take some action so it does not happen to anyone else. It is ridiculous that it had even happened at all! If I were the owner of a shop that had an employee refuse to sell something to a customer they would be terminated. Especially, in your case, where it was time sensitive. MAP is not illegal. If you were asking for something illegal and they refused, that would be understandable but there are no excuses for this. That guy was just being a dick.

I’m really happy that we live in a tolerant society which respects a diversity of views. So it was completely fine that the pharmacist said no and suggested an alternative. You got what you wanted and he/she wasn’t forced to compromise their views.

You wouldn’t tell a churchgoing Christian that they can’t have a job in a 7 day a week business because they can’t work Sunday, you make an adjustment to allow them their religious observance.

Sure. But you wouldn't allow them to refuse to accept bookings for any customers wanting a Sunday lunch in their employer pub, would you? "You'll have to call back and speak to another staff member. It's against my beliefs for anyone to eat out on Sunday so I can't be involved in this booking."

Trust me, you'd be fired PDQ.

As a young teen I had a GP refuse to sign an abortion consent form. It was so difficult to even ask in the first instance I was in bits.
I know MAP is slightly different and I don't understand the objection. It is not an abortion. There is no pregnancy.
I too don't think they should be allowed to refuse to prescribe it. Being a woman can be difficult enough without coming up against others morals in medical situations!!

DISGUSTING - I would be complaining about that. They turned you away for something that you needed - that is not the caring/helpful attitude that a pharmacist should have. I hope you've complained - if not, PLEASE COMPLAIN!!

Perhaps the pharmacist was doing the job before MAP became available. They have the right to deal with sensitive options just as Drs do.

Sure, but there's a gulf between having to go on a course every 3 years, and a really basic set of training for a prescription.

Of course but it is still the case that if they don't have the training they can't sell it and whereas an employee pharmacist can be told to have the training (by their employer), an independent pharmacist doesn't have to.

You wouldn't tell a church going Christian that they can't have a job in a 7 day a week business because they can't work Sunday
Well I would only give the job to a person who was able to work all 7 days. Don't apply for the job if you're unable to do it properly. This idea that a person's religion entitles them to special treatment, thus inconveniencing others, is absurd.

Major chain stores in America like Target Stores allow their pharmacists to not sell MAPs.
America is a crazy place; usually the crazies win.

If no one is available or willing to dispense map then there should be clear notice on door stating so and where nearest chemist is that will dispense it. It is unfair to make op ask for a service the chemist knows in advance they will not give. It seems very judgmental to me. If you personally don't want to take it that is up to you but don't try to judge and prevent others.

I don't understand the argument that some may have trained and qualified pre-MAP therefore we mustn't expect them to be comfortable with it. Medical science is constantly evolving - can you reasonably expect to set your 'hard lines' in stone and never have to move with the times? Other professions have to evolve, so why shouldn't pharmacists?

The 'conscientious objection' is imposing your belief system on someone else. You are perfectly entitled to not support/endorse or ever want to use the MAP yourself, but by refusing to dispense a legal medication upon request to someone who has the legal right to ask for it, you are forcing your beliefs onto that person. If there is no medical reason why they shouldn't have it then it should be dispensed - end of. And if you are so committed to your beliefs that you absolutely do not want to dispense it, then you are working in the wrong job.

I find this very frustrating. If I announced to my boss that I didn't want to do X part of my job anymore I'd be told to jog on, and rightly so. Are the same pharmacists checking that the males they are supplying with viagra are all married? Or does adultery / pre-marital sex not feature on their pic'n'mix of religious ethics?

It’s perfectly acceptable that they may refer the customer elsewhere

No it isn't and that's actually not what courts said in the gay B&B case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. You could say well why does it matter if someone doesn't want to accommodate a gay couple because they can just go elsewhere. But that's not how it works.

And it's not how it works in this case either, it's just that it hasn't gone to court. It doesn't matter that a service is on offer elsewhere - and as people have said, it's not always the case that you've got a Superdrug and Boots pharmacy in the same street, you might be in a village and need to get a bus to one town, where you get turned down, and then need to get a bus to another town and not know if you might get turned down again.

As I said on the handshake thread, religion has no place in the workplace. If you find that your job is not compatible with your religion, you find another one.

And it always seems that religious objections seem to affect women and not men, though I appreciate that it was a male gay couple who were affected in the Cornish B&B case.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but you could contact the pharmacy regulator www.pharmacyregulation.org/ with concerns. If pharmacist has not been working within guidelines then they will investigate.

You are perfectly entitled to not support/endorse or ever want to use the MAP yourself, but by refusing to dispense a legal medication upon request to someone who has the legal right to ask for it, you are forcing your beliefs onto that person. If there is no medical reason why they shouldn't have it then it should be dispensed - end of.

That is true if it is on prescription (if the shop has a contract with the NHS ) but I think it is a bit different if the person is buying the MAP as in this case. Private businesses can decide whether or not they want to sell something and that includes pharmacies. In OP's case Boots want to sell the MAP so OP should complain to them. I don't think you could force an independent pharmacy to sell something they didn't want to sell though, particularly as the pharmacist doesn't have to have the extra training required.

This is different to the day couple and the B&B. They were refused service completely !!! Here the pharmacist asked the OP to sow to his/her colleague. The Op got served, no issue

Gay not day, see not sow!

Here the pharmacist asked the OP to see his/her colleague

No; a colleague implies someone you work with, and in OP's case a completely different pharmacy was suggested. As with the gay couple it's the refusal of service which matters, as I believe a legal test would probably show ... as others have said, it's a shame one hasn't yet been brought

In the meantime, at least with locums, I've no doubt sensible pharmacies will go on insisting that only staff who are able to fulfil the entire role are sent. IME the grandstanding pharmacists dislike this but don't tend to say much - after all, an outcry on their behalf could lead to another test case which they might easily lose

As so often in these cases, it can become a question of "who blinks first"

Yes, you are right and I misread. On that basis I’ve changed my mind and YANBU!!!!