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 ?

Chocolate most of the posts on here are describing what it means to individuals for women's rights to be eroded in this way.
Your whole argument is based on 'it's you women being hysterical, you're so emotional'. Disgraceful misogyny.

Chocolatewombat, no, people who live rurally don’t just have to ‘simply think more ahead than others’. In some locations it is not straightforward at all to go to an alternative pharmacy. Especially for teens who don’t drive and may not wish to involve their parents. If the MAP is available people do have a right to expect to be able to buy it.
It’s interesting that you think you wouldn’t take the MAP. Is that because you think it’s wrong to take it?
Also interesting that you judge people explaining their reasons for taking it. I took it because I was pissed and unwisely had unprotected sex.

I took it because I was raped.

Wtaf I would have done if I had been turned away...

diddl

A man put you there and something designed by men would have kept you there.. .

If pregnancy happened to me this would never happen.

Ever

To men

As PPs have pointed out, this may work in urban areas where there are other pharmacists, but what about less populated areas? Or imagine that entire areas are dominated by a religion which advocates against the MAP.

If you don't want to sell the MAP, you don't become a pharmacist. End of story. I'm fed up of all these religious "freedoms" buggering things for the rest of us.

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

This shouldn't have to happen, but lets say this is the case. I can't honestly see a teenage girl arguing it out with a judgemental pharmasist that they have to dispense because she can't get to another pharmacy.

It should be dispensed, no judgement and certainly no religious argument input. Most people that ask for it do so because they NEED it. For a variety of reasons they cannot have a baby right now.

I had the map once in my life. I was 17 and had a condom accident with my boyfriend, as in it came off and he wasn't sure when . I went to a family planning centre and was very embarrassed to the point of being almost in tears. The woman was very nice but still a bit eyebrow rasied, iykwim. But I explained and she administered. Had I had to have that convo with a judgemental religious adult who then refused to dispense it, I would have been in a total state. And I expect I'm not alone in feeling like this.

If you don't want to sell the MAP, you don't become a pharmacist.

Exactly. Go work in a library and hide or burn the books you object to instead. Don't occupy a public health establishment as a pharmacy and withholding contraception from women is an active harm. It is an active harm to allow patients to think that here is a place they can get their health care need met, when it isn't.

Expecting women to have to take their chances with pharmacy after pharmacy until they find one that doesn't withhold contraception is irresponsible and unethical.

People's fucking idiot superstitions should not be permitted as an excuse for them to get out of doing their jobs.
Your freedom to believe whatever bullshit you choose should never override anyone else's rights to ignore your superstitions and go about their perfectly legal business.
If someone refuses to serve a customer because that customer is wearing a football shirt supporting the 'wrong' team, then that someone would get the sack, and serve them right (this is different from those pubs and clubs which ban football colours on match days, obviously).

We really need to get over indulging certain fuckwits and their specific imaginary friends or primitive taboos at the expense of other people.

ChocolateWombat, you still don't get it. Your entire post is a mishmash of explanations why any perceived judgement is imaginary, created from the self-consciousness and emotionality of women, and then clear evidence of exactly what that judgement is.

Why do you think women feel self conscious about the MAP? Why do they feel obliged to offer explanations as to why they're having the 'right' sort of contraceptive emergency, ie they took precautions which failed? Why do they need to justify themselves?

Women feel pressured to justify their behaviour because female sexual behaviour has always been policed. Men's sexual desire is tacitly permitted in practically every religion, but women don't get carried away by their lustful impulses (we don't have them: that's a male thing), and therefore having sex is either a procreation-related duty or a wilfully irresponsible act. If we insist on doing the latter, then we should take precautions (if we're allowed!). If these precautions fail or (horror) we don't even take them because of aforementioned lustful impulses (unnatural! inexcusable!), then we should be aware that Life may be created, and the slightest pinprick of Life takes precedence over women.

This is the traditional framework of religious/social judgement we're aware of when asking for the MAP. It's the same one the I'm-refusing-you-for-religious-reasons pharamacist is seeing. But it's a moral framework based on women being something lesser, to be controlled or disregarded, and it has no place in a modern professional interaction. Preach it from the rooftops, make a Youtube video - we do have freedom of speech and it's a straw man to suggest otherwise. I'm not going to suffer an unwanted pregnancy because you expressed yourself. But I could if you denied me access to emergency contraception, because you've moved from abstract expression to practical restriction, and all the minimizing remarks about me being able to just pop over the road or try another day don't change that.

It's encouraging to see the tolerant society we live in! As I mentioned before, toleration for everything except religious belief.

Goodness, if pharmacists spoke to their customers in the terms used on this thread about people beliefs, there would be an outcry.....yet it seems acceptable when talking about religious belief.

Like it or not, religious belief remains strong in both this country and across the world. Most people with religious beliefs accept that not everyone has the same beliefs. It would be nice to see those without showing some acceptance too.

This is a different issue to the MAP thing,though clearly connected to it.

We live in a society that has decided MAP should be available. And it is. Regardless of my personal beliefs and what I would do myself, I think it is right it is available. However, I also wholly accept that some people will see it as ending life and not something they neither want to say is okay or supply. Their right to hold those views without being ridiculed or facing attempts to suppress them also need respecting.

Most people have engaged in sensible debate on this thread and it has given me food for thought. Not accepting religious belief is still very much part of society or a desire to crush it, when it's not your own choice, saddens me.

No one's denying their right to whatever religion they choose.

But god is for at home and inside your own head affecting only you.

It does not belong in medical advice or treatment when you are not the patient.

In my view, rightly or wrongly, when you take a job, you take all that comes with it.
If you train as a pharmacist you make a conscious decision to dispense drugs. If any aspect of that disagrees with your moral compass, go do something else. It is not for someone in that position to sit in judgement of their customer.
If there were always two on duty, this could be handled seamlessly without impacting on the customer.
In the same vein this could affect dispensing drugs to treat HIV, methadone, stds or whatever.
I heard of a case where a warehouse operative refused to handle alcohol but had not thought about all the products that contain alcohol. He was unable to handle 70% of the items in the warehouse meaning that it took two people to do one person's job because his religion had to be accommodated. To my mind, this is madness. Either you do the job for which you are employed or you don't.

"Expecting women to have to take their chances with pharmacy after pharmacy until they find one that doesn't withhold contraception is irresponsible and unethical."

I absolutely agree with that.

Op had made a decision for herself about her body.

Yet another person's religion impacted that.

When I worked in a pharmacy we had two employed pharmacists'. One pharmacist that conscientiously objected and one that dispensed the MAP. We also had a lot of locums that would have various opinions.

I worked in a 100 hour pharmacy in a supermarket. Each employed pharmacist worked a 40 hour week, they worked 5 shifts per week each, 3 shifts per week were covered by locums. Potentially we could have 66 hours per week of not handing out the MAP if locums conscientiously object also.

I was very frustrating from a dispenser/counter staff point of view as we advertise the MAP as an available service. It was often quite difficult to have to explain to distressed customer that we were unable to help them then direct them to the nearest pharmacy. Luckily we were only 0.5 miles to the local hospital which had a pharmacy

Some recent changes to standards are as follows:
Standard 3.4 in the General Pharmaceutical Council's (GPhC)
previous standards of conduct, ethics and performance – often referred to as the "conscience clause". This clause gave pharmacists an opt-out for providing services and medicines that are contrary to their "religious and moral beliefs".

However, the regulator adopted new standards in May 2017 – called the 'standards for pharmacy professionals' –

Standard one in this document includes a request for pharmacists to: “Take responsibility for ensuring that person-centred care" - they do this by:
Recognising and value diversity, and respect cultural differences making sure that every person is treated fairly whatever their values and beliefs
Recognising their own values and beliefs but do not impose them on other people.

From a legal point of view it is thought that this will really only impact pharmacists working in rural locations were an alternative pharmacy that can provide the MAP my be miles and miles away and therefore not in the patients best interests.

Employers would not be permitted to introduce a blanket ban on employing people who have certain religious beliefs – that would be discriminatory and unlawful. However it would be perhaps wise for prospective employers to look at everything on a case by case basis and to check if prospective pharmacists are accredited to provide the MAP if it is a service that wish to provide.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read and I can't believe it's true. So someone's personal religious opinion means they can't dispense legal drugs that a stranger wants to buy. This is so unprofessional and reflects so badly on Boots. How is it the Pharmacist's decision what is morally right and wrong? I don't think they should be allowed to have any personal say over someone else's shopping habits if Boots sells the product, they should dispense it. This pharmacist probably has a little god-complex and gets a thrill from making these kinds of decisions. Really surprised this is Boots policy. I would definitely complain if it was me.

Their right to hold those views without being ridiculed or facing attempts to suppress them also need respecting

At what point does religious freedom butt up against fundamental human rights? All freedoms are curtailed, in a sense, when they start to impinge on other people. That's the key concept to a secular society - and a secular society is the ONLY way we can coexist if we don’t all believe the same thing, right? Religious beliefs are protected until they impinge on the law of the land or the human rights of others At that point the law of the land takes precedence. Maybe a person believes that women should be modestly covered but if he rapes a woman in a short skirt he has committed a crime. He may think homosexuality Is a sin, but if he verbally abuses his gay neighbor he should be done for harassment.

His religious rights must not override the law or the human rights of others (or frankly, we are on a fast train back to the dark ages.)

The pharmacists right to believe what they want is there. But what about their actions? Are they allowed to take an action that could directly harm a patient because of that belief? I say no, they are not.

Referring back to that case a while back in Ireland where a young woman was refused an emergency abortion (for a much wanted baby, but the pregnancy was killing her.) in that case, the religious belief overrode her right to medical treatment and her right to life.

The pharmacist has no moral right to conduct an action that could result in harm to the patient.

Those saying the pharmacists deny access to the MAP are simply wrong

If they are refusing to dispense, than they must certainly are denying them access.

For those who say the pharmacist should have to give out the morning after pill, do you think all doctors should have to be willing to profrom abortions?

Yes I do. It's part of their job

Would a pharmacist be within their rights to not sell products that contained gelatine or alcohol?

April, my last comment wasn't to you.
I read your last paragraph with real interest. I can see what you mean about a difference between the abstract and practice. I'm glad that you don't want to shut down freedom to express views. Some people seem to want to do that.
Regarding practice, I can see what you mean. Having to go across town or to another place does make getting the MAP more tricky. Others have said that pharmacists who don't want to supply MAP only work in places where another supplier is easily available. This seems a sensible way of dealing with it to me. Where possible, people have the burden (and some do see it as a burden) lifted from having to supply it.

And yes this thing about women feeling judged by standards/rules put in place by men.....I can see where you are coming from. I think we actually agree that when women feel they must apologise for needing the MAP or to explain it in terms of they need it for a 'legitimate' reason such as split condom, they are returning to the idea that women should only be having 'responsible' sex and anything else needs apologising for and is wrong. Today's women are very clearly still affected by these messages and it's hard to break free from them and you are right it is a totally double standard for men,mparticularly in the past, but still now.

Sex aside though, I think we will disagree about the matter of life, when it begins and choices about that. It is a religious belief, but also one which many people feel deep down, that after conception, there is a life. I know we will differ in views about who should decide if that is a life and if it can continue or not. It comes back to those questions in the end doesn't it. It's that age old question about a woman's right to choose or someone else's right to be involved in deciding for a life (if you think it's that) which cannot choose for itself.

I don't think the pharmacists who don't want to give out MAP are saying no-one should ever have MAP or others shouldn't give it. They are saying that they don't feel comfortable giving it and being involved with what it does. Likewise, I don't feel happy about late term abortions, but I wouldn't try to stop anyone else having one and accept the law on it.

Their right to hold those views without being ridiculed or facing attempts to suppress them also need respecting. Except when it stops them doing their job, and adversely affects their customers rights and health. You're not getting it are you chocolatewombat They can hold any view they like, but when those views get in the way of them helping someone - which is their job - then it becomes wrong.

As I mentioned before, toleration for everything except religious belief. Religion is tolerated in lots of aspects of life. however, in this secnario it has absolutely no place. Why should it be tolerated by a distressed woman seeking the map from a pharmacy that advertises it? Why does the pharmacists belief trump this woman or girls health and her right to this medication?

Imagine having a jevovah witness who has qualified as a surgeon, whose patient suddenly needs a blood transfusion. And surgeon saying, oh sorry its against my religion, so I'll just send you across the road to the other hospital for them to finish up. I know time is of the essence and you're dying, but you know, its my religion. What can you do!

If you have religious beliefs so strong that they will potentially prevent you from doing a job, you don't do that job.

You wouldn't expect someone to work in a pub pulling pints if the religion they followed says it was wrong so the same should go for pharmacist's. The pharmacist is not God, Allah or any other deity so if they cant stand the heat they should stay out of the kitchen.

"They are saying that they don't feel comfortable giving it and being involved with what it does. "

And that is fine- until they are the only one available & someone has to go elsewhere.

Their beliefs/opinions have directly affected someone procuring what they can legally obtain from those premises.

How is that OK?

You wouldn't expect someone to work in a pub pulling pints if the religion they followed says it was wrong so the same should go for pharmacist's

People pick and choose all the time what parts they will follow and what they won't. And all those that i have served iver he hears and watched get drunk or had grab my arse or dodge calls from the wide as they flirt with some girl at the bar, they have no problem picking those parts to ignors.

So of all the things to decide to suddenly care about, why women and their emergency contraception?