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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
RainOnATinRoof · 07/02/2018 11:00

and we have to measure them against the rights of the pharmacist which also exist.

It's not really a "right" though, as it would need to apply universally to be a real right. But if you consider whether all workers or even many have the "right" to perform their job so it matches their personal ethics, the answer is absolutely not.

Muslims sell alcohol to customers at sainsburys etc, even though it is against their religion. A muslim explained to me that since it is the shop and wider society making the decision to sell booze, that the muslim worker is absolved of personal responsibility, and their conscience can remain clear.

This is the assumption - that if your personal ethics conflict with your employer's, you'll find a way to just get on with it with a "hey it's not me, it's my employer, I'm only following orders" mentality, or you find another job.

Funny that this doesn't apply when it comes to women's health though.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/02/2018 11:01

Moral choices are personal.

Personal issues have no place in the work place.

SweetMoon · 07/02/2018 11:02

Pharmacist aren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just women then, who don't hold the same view as them.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/02/2018 11:05

Course it's just women.

Men aren't refused condoms because they have no wedding ring on

araiwa · 07/02/2018 11:11

You dont need a pharmacist to dispense condoms... so its neither here nor there

RainOnATinRoof · 07/02/2018 11:12

Frankly, what makes me even more angry is that the pharmacist TOLD op he wouldn't dispense it "for religious reasons"

He could have just kept it nice and neutral and said he can't dispense it because he hasn't been trained to do so (which would also be true, according to a previous poster).

But instead he's going to tell you exactly what he really thinks, so then you're also forced into thinking about his fucking religious morals.

It's so unprofessional.

Dungeondragon15 · 07/02/2018 11:14

Pharmacist aren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just women then, who don't hold the same view as them.

There is no law stopping "discrimination" against someone who has a different view. There is obviously a law preventing discrimination on the basis of sex i.e. treating men differently to women but presumably, they are not considered to be doing this when they refuse the MAP. There has been a lot of debate over this and I don't think they are allowed to refuse if it means that the person may not receive the MAP but I think the person can easily get it elsewhere.

ChocolateWombat · 07/02/2018 11:14

So why is a distinction made here?

Is it because it's not just any old personal belief, but beliefs about ending life? I think society and government give more weight to being able to follow your conscience about this area. If euthanasia were legal, Doctors would be given freedom to opt out of carrying it out. If there were specific clinics, presumably, like abortion clinics, if you didn't want to carry out these procedures, you wouldn't work in these clinics but elsewhere.
Pharmacy is a bit different. It is a broad area and pharmacists dispense all kinds of drugs all the time. There aren't pharmacies devoted to the MAP - if there were, clearly pharmacists who don't want to supply the MAP wouldn't work in those. However they don't and pharmacists supply a huge range of products,mod which MAP is a tiny fraction of their work. One way gov could have handled this is to have specific suppliers - only those signing up to supply it, in specific locations do so and supply just the MAP or perhaps other contraception too - perhaps family planning centres? They didn't go down this route for practical reasons, in that there would be fewer options of getting the MAP for women. So the outcome and solution offered aims to achieve many purposes - it seeks to supply women with the MAP, it seeks to offer a wide range of places to access it, it aims to give pharmacists the right not to supply if they choose not to, it aims to be efficient.

Of course it's right to recognise the rights of women to access MAP. They are recognised and women can access it. It is possible to give this right and also to safeguard other rights at the same time. Giving pharmacists the right to not supply,m it instead to advise on another location does not remove women's right to the MAP not access to it, which some people seem to suggest.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/02/2018 11:15

People of all backgrounds still sell them though. Hell they are sold in corner shops and petrol garages who are run or staffed very often by said people from.a variety of cultures/back grounds.

And pharmacists still dispense medications that contain non kosher non halal tested on animals containing animal products.that they are fine with.Hmm

Dungeondragon15 · 07/02/2018 11:15

Men aren't refused condoms because they have no wedding ring on

Neither are women refused condoms if they have no wedding ring on though.

Mummyoflittledragon · 07/02/2018 11:15

araiwa
Men have never been prevented from getting contraceptive, unlike women. For example, condoms were sold through the barbers shop, it was “something for the weekend sir”. Women weren’t able to go and get them. It’s always women that suffer even though they bear the brunt of the outcome, that’s the point.

Dungeondragon15 · 07/02/2018 11:20

Giving pharmacists the right to not supply,m it instead to advise on another location does not remove women's right to the MAP not access to it, which some people seem to suggest.

Yes, if they can't easily access it elsewhere then they do have to supply, whether or not they have moral objections.

Grinnypig · 07/02/2018 11:23

Chocolatewombat, a pharmacist could choose to work in a hospital pharmacy or in a very large pharmacy where they are not the only person available to prescribe. They have options.
The issue is not about ‘awkwardness’ as you have said. You appear to believe, wrongly, that everyone has access to more than one pharmacy. They simply don’t. I drive and so can get to other towns but if my DDs had needed the MAP when they were younger and our local pharmacy had refused to sell it then they would have been unable to go elsewhere unless they were happy to ask me or DH to help them. Same as any other non drivers in our small town. A taxi is around £20 each way so is out of reach of many.

Mailawaymailawaymailaway · 07/02/2018 11:34

This is ridiculous and worth a complaint.

I think it's perfectly fine to say, "Of course, let me just get my colleague to deal with that for you" and get a fellow pharmacist in the same shop to speak to you. It doesn't cast any judgement, or delay matters more than a few minutes.

The MAP is time-sensitive so referring women to some other pharmacy is irresponsible. What if it's unexpectedly closed? What if it's far away? What if it takes a few hours to source an alternative supplier and those hours make all the difference? The woman could be close to the end of the window of effectiveness.

I don't think it's acceptable to explain you can't prescribe something for religious reasons. That brings judgement - that says, I cannot do this, because my religion says it bad, therefore I think it's bad, therefore I think badly of you for doing this.

You can say something vague like "my colleague is the one who is qualified to prescribe this" because that doesn't pass judgement. But you can only say or do that if there is an alternative person in the same building. If you have to send someone to a different pharmacy, you lose the right to refuse to prescribe, IMHO.

I once took the MAP after the perfect storm of 1) my pill being compromised due to taking antibiotics and 2) the condom splitting. I was in a committed long-term relationship and whilst the chances of me falling pregnant were low, I couldn't risk those odds. The pharmacist who prescribed the the MAP told me I was being responsible, she reassured me I had done the right thing and she apologised profusely at the bag of leaflets and free condoms she was required to pass to any woman taking the MAP due to a local council initiative at the time.

She made me feel like going to speak to her, which had been so incredibly hard, was the right thing for me at that moment in my life. That is what a pharmacist should be like - the OP's pharmacist has bloody well failed at human compassion and I do think this warrants a complaint. His religion does not trump the customer's need.

Eltonjohnssyrup · 07/02/2018 11:48

The MAP is time-sensitive so referring women to some other pharmacy is irresponsible. What if it's unexpectedly closed?

Well that's why people who have these objections are only employed in places there are lots of alternatives.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/02/2018 11:56

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Wouldn't that be like saying that religious discrimination is ok when hiring in rural areas?

AprilW · 07/02/2018 11:59

Those saying a moral judgement is being given are wrong. You are mixing up the emotion of the issue with the reality of what pharmacists are actually doing and not doing [...] The complicated thing is that people seeking the MAP often are emotional about this.

Nice bit of gaslighting there.

Women are just imagining judgement when being refused the MAP on religious grounds, because they're overly emotional at the time.

Here's a list of MAP-refusals which imply no judgement:

  • we've run out of stock
  • you suffer from [pre-existing condition] or take [medication], so I'm afraid the MAP isn't suitable for you: you'll need to see your GP
  • I haven't been trained to dispense the MAP
  • we have the MAP in stock, but I can't find it
  • you're refusing to answer the health-based questions which I need to ask in order to safely dispense the MAP
  • you're asking for it for another person, which isn't permitted

Here's a list of judgement-based reasons:

-it's against my religious belief

Religious beliefs imply judgement. That's the point: the division of human actions into acceptable and unacceptable, depending on a moral framework set down by a deity and codified by his earthly representatives. It's not a random lottery of X is fine and Y is forbidden, spin the wheel and see what you can do today.

The religious rationale behind the MAP (or contraception) being forbidden revolves around sexual activity, particularly amongst women, being considered taboo unless it's for the purpose of procreation, and the sense that conception is willed by god and should not be prevented, and that a fertilized egg has equal/superior rights to an adult female. Trying to gloss over this by saying 'ooh... no biggie, it's just a religious thing, no judgement, I just won't fulfil my professional function or take your money' fools nobody.

NataliaOsipova · 07/02/2018 12:01

Trying to gloss over this by saying 'ooh... no biggie, it's just a religious thing, no judgement, I just won't fulfil my professional function or take your money' fools nobody.

Well said.

ChocolateWombat · 07/02/2018 12:17

If you live remotely or don't have much money to pay for transport, accessing the MAP will be more difficult than for someone who lives in a big urban area or who has plenty of money for transport etc. These arguments about finding the alternative pharmacy was shut, can apply to anyone, anywhere can't they. All pharmacies close at some point. If you live in a rural area, you simply do have to travel further for everything - shopping, banks, doctors, schools, pharmacies and everything else. There is no government provided solution to these issues of rural access - isn't it simply a fact that people in rural areas have to think ahead more than other people because there are less close by options of everything?

The emotion is this thing about seeking the MAP is so evident in this thread and the fear of judgement. Almost everyone who has mentioned seeking it starts with an explanation of why they were seeking it - they feel a need to do this. People seem to feel they need to tell us that the condom split or whatever - they are always keen to make clear they weren't having sex in a way which might be seen as irresponsible. I bet they often tell the pharmacist this stuff too. And I'm not questioning the truth of it, simply acknowledging that women who find themselves possibly pregnant who don't want to be, immediately feel themselves to be judged and a need to justify their behaviour or their conequent actions.....I know it's not everyone and some will happily stand up and say they had unprotected sex and are proud and have no qualms at all about the MAP or what anyone might think.....What I am saying is that this sense elf judgement that people feel can colour the way they view the pharmacists or their actions or their views.

If someone says they don't want to provide the MAP, another poster says, this means that they are thinking it is wrong,ntherefore this means I think you are wrong to take it and I think you are a bad person and you are a bad person. I can see how someone feeling a bit vulnerable having to go to the pharmacy and already needing to justify themselves makes these leaps and feels like this.....but I think we need to separate those feelings from the reality.

Pharmacists work with people taking all kind of drugs and with all kinds of issues. They give methadone to heroin addicts and see all kinds of things and behaviours. They are used to dealing with people and to showing compassion and to keeping personal feelings about all kinds of things to themselves. Probably the methadone collectors feel they are being judged,mor the people collecting anti depressants feel they are being judged. They probably aren't being judged.

And also I think we need to accept that not everyone will have the same belief or thought as us. Someone might think something we do is wrong or would openly say they wouldn't do it. We have to accept that. We don't have a right to praise or acceptance of our every behaviour, just because that is what we choose to do. Some people seem to think that their rights to access MAP extend to everyone in society having to say and believe that MAP is a good thing, or something that should be available, or they would use themselves.......they want vindication of their own choices. There is no right to that. Ntherefore is a right to access to MAP and pharmacists do t prevent that.

There are people who believe MAP is wrong and ending life. That is a fact and it is their view. Most of those people are not trying to prevent women having access to it, if that is what they want. However, those wishing to access MAP need to accept that not everyone thinks it is a good thing and that some people see it as ending life. That might be uncomfortable if you think you might be pregnant when you don't want to be, but it is a fact. I think some people believe no-one should be allowed to hold such views and this is all tangled into the pharmacist issue - the pharmacists who are allowed not to supply the MAP but to suggest an alternative place that will, are a reminder that not everyone supports MAP....and that's uncomfortable. Well it might be, but trying to either deny people's rights to hold that view or to run society in a way so those views are never heard isn't tolerance,mbut an attempt to deny freedom of speech and thought.

I will be clear, I think MAP should be available to women. Personally I don't think Inwould use it, but who knows what Inwould do if the circumstance arose. I think it's good it's available to women to access. I also think that pharmacists should have the right to do as they do now and not supply if their conscience tells them it is ending life - and let's not pretend it's not about that..lath at is the issue for the pharmacists who don't want to supply. I am happy for them to have that right and if it results in some awkwardness or having to travel across the road to another pharmacy, or even on a bus or car journey to the next pharmacy, then I'm satisfied because I feel it's possible to give both the women and pharmacists rights here.

Abortion and MAP are emotive issues. The women who find themselves having to seek these things feel it, those who agree and those who disagree feel it too. It's right that access to these things is legalised but it's not right to try and crush any voices that don't feel comfortable with abortion or MAP.....and that's what I think a lot of people would like to do.

Last post from me.

NewYearNiki · 07/02/2018 12:21

Religion having such recognition and power is crazy.

You can train as a pharmacist and then refuse to do your job because of a belief in an imaginary friend

Dobbythesockelf · 07/02/2018 12:27

My local pharmacy is a boots pharmacy but it is small and they only have one pharmacist there. If they refused to sell th MAP then the next closest pharmacy is a 30 min bus ride away which will cost you 4 quid for a return ticket. I think it's very dangerous to allow this to happen, if it was a teenage girl then maybe she would just be so so mortified that she wouldn't go get it elsewhere, which could lead to pregnancy and either an abortion or a child being born to a teenage mother who never wanted it. If the pharmacy has a pharmacist that refuses to sell it then they should either employ another pharmacist who will or they need a sign up so people can walk away without having to be told that the pharmacist has moral objections. Just a simple MAP not available at this time would do it surely.

Gileswithachainsaw · 07/02/2018 12:28

I will never see how forced pregnancy birth and ignoring a legal right to body autonomy is less emotive than a pill or an abortion.

No one's forcing them to have one.

They have no right to refuse others for personal opinion.

Dungeondragon15 · 07/02/2018 12:29

If you live remotely or don't have much money to pay for transport, accessing the MAP will be more difficult than for someone who lives in a big urban area or who has plenty of money for transport etc. These arguments about finding the alternative pharmacy was shut, can apply to anyone, anywhere can't they. All pharmacies close at some point. If you live in a rural area, you simply do have to travel further for everything - shopping, banks, doctors, schools, pharmacies and everything else. There is no government provided solution to these issues of rural access - isn't it simply a fact that people in rural areas have to think ahead more than other people because there are less close by options of everything?

They can't just refuse to dispense if there is no chemist nearby that could dispense. I think they would be in trouble if the patient had to spend a fortune on taxis etc.

Gromance02 · 07/02/2018 12:30

In what world can the NHS to have a spare pharmacist on hand in case the other fairy-believing pharmacist is asked to provide something they don't believe in? As loads of PP's have said, if you can't fulfil all aspects of your role, you don't go into that career. Talk about stating the fucking obvious.

Dungeondragon15 · 07/02/2018 12:39

In what world can the NHS to have a spare pharmacist on hand in case the other fairy-believing pharmacist is asked to provide something they don't believe in?

They're not employed by the NHS if they are working in Boots or another chemist shop. They are private businesses.

Swipe left for the next trending thread