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 ?

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.

They wouldn't need to argue. A pharmacist can't refer someone else if there is nowhere else within a reasonable distance. If they don't want to dispense the MAP it is their duty to only work in places if they can easily refer to somewhere nearby. If they can't do that then it wouldn't ethical for them to refuse to dispense.

It is a sin for a Muslim to work in a pub so they wouldn't work in a pub. A pharmacist can do 99% of their job other than dispensing the MAP. It's not the same.

woman-hating dicksplash 😂

Yes I do. It's part of their job

It isn't their job if their regulatory body or employer tells them it doesn't have to be part of their job though. It's not up to the general public to decide on what their job involves.

"A pharmacist can't refer someone else if there is nowhere else within a reasonable distance."

I wonder how many women know that, & also wonder what is a "reasonable distance"?

If a pharmacist's beliefs about what I should be allowed to do with my own body, conflict with my legal right and the position of the NHS, then they are not fit for purpose.

A religious belief that a woman should not have bodily autonomy is in conflict with the law, with the NHS and with a woman's human rights.

You can hold that view privately, but you cannot fulfil your duties. Much as a teacher who believed girls should not be educated would not be allowed to exclude girls from his class.

You can hold discriminatory beliefs, but if it translates into discriminatory practice you are not fit to practise.

A person holding such a view is exempting themselves from public service, and the medical and pharmacy profession should not make room or validate anyone responsible for women's health who holds such a view.

. It's not up to the general public to decide on what their job involves.

It's not up to them to decide what they dispense/perform.

One persons freedom of religion ends where it starts to impede on another's.

I wonder how many women know that, & also wonder what is a "reasonable distance"?

I think if someone couldn't walk there it isn't a reasonable distance. I don't know how many people know that but I do know that pharmacists have a duty of care towards patients. If someone made a complaint about a pharmacist because they wouldn't dispense the MAP and didn't advice them or where they could get it within a reasonable distance (i.e without spending money on public transport) they would probably be in trouble.

advice advise

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

They never seem to impinge on men’s healthcare

It was my job to audit accounts. By law companies of a certain size must be audited. One of my employer's clients were very involved in animal testing, something which I strongly object to. I refused to work on the job on moral grounds, as did a number of other staff members. The work was done by other staff who didn't have an issue.
You can still do your job well and object to tiny parts of the role.

It's not up to them to decide what they dispense/perform.

It is up to them if this is agreed with their regulatory body and/or employer. It isn't up to the general public.

Well no one's going to end up carrying a rape baby cos their accounts weren't audited

Not the same thing

But JJPP, no ones healthcare was affected by that choice. It was human-cost neutral.

Ones freedoms only exist until they start to hurt others.

Boycott an animal facility than does cosmetic testing - no human harm done.

Boycott the place that supplies lab mice to a cancer research lab. Great for the mice, less good for the children suffering from a rare cancer those mice were the model for and a team were using to create new treatments in.

It's sounding to me as if this issue has been thought about carefully by gov and pharmacist companies and is largely a non-issue in practical terms.

• pharmacists who don't want to supply MAP are legally allowed to take this position.

• pharmacists who take this position don't work in areas where there aren't other pharmacists available, so this issue of having to travel miles for an alternative doesn't apply.
• pharmacists know that if they find themselves in a remote area as the only pharmacist, they will have to dispense (if qualified). I guess it is then up to the pharmacy companies to make sure they have sufficient pharmacists who are qualified to offer MAP and who are willing to offer it.

I can see there could be times in any pharmacy when you can't get what you want. Some shut for lunch, some will have certain people qualified to prescribe specialist products on some days and not others, sometimes they are out of stock.

Perhaps signage needs to be clearer. MAP signs in Windows should be removed if there is a sole pharmacist in who doesn't want to prescribe. Perhaps an indication could be put in window of alternative location, in the same way it is when pharmacies are closed.

Here I am talking about practical issues rather than the principle of whether anyone should be allowed to opt out from supplying MAP for moral reasons.

Incidentally, I wonder what proportion of pharmacists have opted out. Not sure if it's few or if gov is aware there are loads and that if they insisted all had to offer MAP there would be a mass leaving of the industry, making it unsustainable. I wonder if the opt out is allow for religious freedom of action or more motivated by practical reasons.

A rape baby? How charming you are.

" The work was done by other staff who didn't have an issue."

Was the client affected at all??

Im sorry should I soften the blow a bit.

The fact is the only person who knows what really happened is the person walking through those doors needing the help. Help advertised as being given.

If even one person gives up and goes home as a result of these practices that's one person too many.

And yes that could mean they end up carrying a rapists baby. No sense denying it so people can pretend it's all about tolerance and everything is ok as there's some where else to go.

And yes that could mean they end up carrying a rapists baby. No sense denying it so people can pretend it's all about tolerance and everything is ok as there's some where else to go.

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.

I agree that signs shouldn't be up saying MAP given here, unless it is. If it's not available because they are out of stock or pharmacist is as lunch or doesn't dispense, an alternative nearby location should be listed.

I think that as long as the product can be accessed locally, opting out of supplying is okay. I know what you mean about 1 person too many with the rapist baby.....but that person could be discouraged by finding a pharmacy was out of stock or closed on Weds afternoons, or any other reasons. As long as it is clear where someone can get the product locally, then the opt out seems okay to me.
It's not okay to have signs up saying it's available and then it's not. Website info for pharmacies supplying along with opening times would help too.

Can anyone point me in the direction of any evidence that pharmacists who refuse to prescribe the MAP only ever work within walking distance of another pharmacy who will prescribe?
Our (only) pharmacy is only ever staffed by a locum pharmacist. I wonder if any of them are ever conscientious objectors.

The first-time I had to take it I had no idea where to even go. My friend said that was a hospital in her home town so I got the college bus with my bus pass and little money with no idea how the hell id get back as there were no actual buses and I didn't know the area at all. But she said there was a hospital so I took the chance. I eventually found the hospital and for whatever reason they denied having it I didn't feel they were telling the truth and I'm sure people will pile in now to say that their hospital doesn't stock it either, but they were pretty unhelpful really. Gave me an address of a clinic which involved walking around in the dark in a town I'd never been too hoping to god the clinic would even be open at that point. So again I eventually managed to find this clinic and finally obtain this damn pill and all that was left was to somehow get back.

Whole thing took hours and my lunch money for the week and but least no one felt awkward

Can anyone point me in the direction of any evidence that pharmacists who refuse to prescribe the MAP only ever work within walking distance of another pharmacy who will prescribe?

The new ethics were only recently introduced so no evidence. Obviously, some pharmacists could be breaking the rules but they could do that even if they were told that they weren't allowed to refuse to dispense MAP. They would just need to say that it was out of stock or make some other excuse. They are private businesses so don't necessarily have to provide any particular service.

I don't think they should be able to just turn you away and say try another pharmacy

Neither do many of the pharmacy chain managers, among whom there's concern about this practice spreading to the point where it gets out of hand

I was involved in the industry for years, and if it's any consolation what some employers do - at least in the case of the very many locum pharmacists - is to request that only staff who are able to carry out the role in its entirety are sent to work on any given day

IME it's surprising how quickly these "strong principles" can become rather more flexible when it's a question of perhaps losing work ...

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