To think this is a bit off....But not sure why.

[Shortstuff08]

So, I had to go get the morning after pill today. I went to a high street retailer that has a pharmacy. They had a sign saying they provided it.

The woman behind the counter asked me if I was wanting the free one or to pay for it. I said that I assumed I would have to pay. She went away and came back and said they didn't provide the free one. I said that was fine and she told me that the Pharmacist would come our to see me in minute. A man approached me and asked if I was waiting. He then told me that he 'couldn't' provide MAP. I asked if they didn't have any and he said 'no, we do, but I can't give it'

Fair enough, I went to another high street store. Spoke to the Pharmacist there, she asked me a few questions about medication I am on and the gave me it. I said I was relieved she could as the other store couldn't give me it and thought I would spend all day looking for somewhere. She asked me where I had been and then said that some pharmacists, don't give it out due to religious purposes.

I don't think that's ok. If it's your job, how can you refuse on religious grounds? Or are some Pharmacists not able to administer it? Or am I being an arse in thinking that you should just do your job?

"This is not a sexism issue at all, its a very sensitive issue in is own right that can affect many people, male and female"
What, the MAP? No it isn't.

So I'm infering from that that you think unless they follow the religion to the letter, then they can't claim religion. If they break one part, they can't use another as their defence

No I am saying that using religion as a reason to object is ridiculous. Especially as religion is down to so much personal interpretation. That it's ridiculous to say 'my religion objects to 'x' so I am going follow it and impact other people. My religion also objects to 'y' but I am not bothered about that so will support people doing it as it's their choice'

And I am saying it's amazing that the objection impacts women and women's sexual health, but not men.

However intolerant they were, they should have been afforded the right to refuse service to anyone.

And that's you opinion. However, the Law disagreed.

We all have a right to buy alcohol, but we don't need to force Muslims to sell it if they choose not too as there are other options.

Do you not see the difference between alcohol and medication?

I was refused to be put on the pill as a teenager (when my mum took me down to the GP for horrendous periods) because my Catholic GP didn't approve and said it wa. My mum sort of flounced out, went to the reception demanded to see another GP immediately and kick up a stink. Needless to say we saw another GP and got the prescription. This is coming up 20 odd years ago though.

He won't be the only pharmacist working there. The others will dispense it

At my pharmacist there is one pharmacist on at any one time. So what you’re saying is it’s rorallt acceptable for a time sensitive medication to have to wait to take it? All because of someone’s religion?

We all have a right to buy alcohol, but we don't need to force Muslims to sell it if they choose not too as there are other options

Not exactly the same in terms of importance is it?

As far as I’m concerned if you can’t fulfill all the necessary duties your role necessitates because of your religion you should choose another job quite frankly.

Pro-choice doesn’t mean some random guy gets to choose what happens with my fertility

Haven't read the full thread so apologies if this has been said. I used to work as a dispenser and I have never heard of not providing on religuous grounds. However, I do know that pharmacists need extra training to be able to supply the MAP so indeed not all will be able to give it to you.

Also what people are ignoring is how about the 15 year old girl who is terrified and turned away with no suggestion of where to go
.

Even if (his totally ridiculous) objection is totally above board he failed in duty of care to recommend another place to go.

Another poster nailed it - don’t like abortion - fine don’t have one. Don’t like morning after pill then don’t take it. But refusing to others is not on.

We should have autonomy over our own bodies and choices.

It disgusts me that it is perfectly legal to refuse this on religious grounds.

A person bleeding out and MAP is slightly different, one is a life or death right that second emergency
The other has a slightly longer time frame and isn't a life or death emergency
He has the right to refuse, though he should have directed you elsewhere or suggested you wait for someone to become available who could.
He may not have been legally able to give you the medication regardless of his beliefs.
There may have been sickness or other pharmacist could have been on a break.
He didn't say you couldn't have it he just said he couldnt give it.
It's annoying but it could have been for any reason.
The other pharmacy you went to could have been assuming, got confused with a different pharmacist that worked there or just generally lying so he could get more business.
And yes a nurse can refuse to be part of the abortion process. What if a woman was having an abortion in hospital and not in a clinic, I'm sure nurses don't see abortions in hospitals much because there are clinics, so they didn't set out to work in that srtting and just refuse because they wanted to be awkward.

He has the right to refuse, though he should have directed you elsewhere or suggested you wait for someone to become available who could

As has been several times, he may not have a legal right anymore. I am going to clarify this later.

The Pharmacist charter, linked on page 3 of this thread, suggests not.

And as I said before. A Catholic bakery was found to be discriminatory, because they would not provide a cake for a gay couple.

So it follows that it's not ok to not provide medication to a woman, on religious grounds. Surely?

Actually, strict Catholic teaching does affect men, too. A Catholic pharmacist could refuse to serve him condoms, and a Catholic GP could refuse to refer him for a vasectomy. This isn't the case with the C of E and other mainstream Protestant churches; contraception isn't something we believe is wrong at all.

Yes, some do have issues with the MAP or the coil, because they think that nothing should interfere with a fertilised embryo.

They also oppose IVF. I faced this when my BIL and SIL told me I shouldn't have IVF, because of the 'spare embryos'. What made it worse was that my SIL had just had her fourth child so I felt she had a right nerve. It was also none of her business.

In the event, there were no spare embryos anyway, as there was only one immature egg. Hence why we adopted our 2 DDs.

Actually, strict Catholic teaching does affect men, too. A Catholic pharmacist could refuse to serve him condoms, and a Catholic GP could refuse to refer him for a vasectomy.

No one said religious rules don't impact men. But that the MAP and it's availability is a women's issue.

Women have had to fight for every right we have - to vote, to own property, to work in a number of professions, to inherit equally. Everything.

I would hate for women's rights to be the banner we are waving when we start curtailing religious freedom.

If one person was in charge of dispensing medication to everyone in the country then we'd have a huge problem, but that is not the case. There is a vast network of doctors and pharmacists available in the majority of areas. So a minority of them choosing to exercise their right to choose does not stop women exercising their right to also choose. But if we start hammering to take their right away then that's the first step of curtailing reasonable religious freedom. Once you start chipping away at it, it's very easy to smash the whole thing down.

We had to fight for all of our rights. I would hate to be part of a movement of women taking those same rights to choose away from another group. Not until their actions completely prevent us from exercising our choice.

It is entirely unacceptable that someone can use religious beliefs to refuse to provide the full level of care that you expect to receive.

No GP, surgeon, pharmacist, etc should be able to refuse care on religious grounds.

Their "beliefs" should not affect their job.

There is a vast network of doctors and pharmacists available in the majority of areas

But what about the minority of areas? Is it ok to throw those women under the bus for the sake of "religious freedom".

I'm not sure I agree that religious freedom should enable a person to affect other people with their beliefs. By all means worship as you want, but removing a service from a group under the guise of having the freedom to practise your religion is totally abhorrent.

I'm not disputing that, @Shortstuff08 of course the MAP is a women's issue. I simply mean that it's not just women that can be refused body autonomy. So this issue should be of concern to men, too.

It's actually very shortsighted on the part of the pharmacist. He must surely know that in refusing you the MAP, there's a very good chance that he'll be adding to the abortion statistics. An MAP must surely be preferable to an abortion, assuming he disapproves of both?

Of course, it may well be the case that he was genuinely meaning it when he said he couldn't dispense the MAP to you. As PPs have said, pharmacists need extra training in order to be permitted to dispense it. If that had been the case, though, he should have explained himself better.

I live in London. My excellent GP does not prescribe contraception on religious grounds. Since I didn't need it, it didn't affect my care.
However, my 15 year old daughter had awful periods. As a midwife I know the simplest solution is the combined pill. I didn't want her to go to her GP and have an awkward conversation that might prevent her from developing confidence in dealing with HCPs.
So I did two things,
: I spoke to a woman GP I worked with and she happily saw my daughter where she had a very positive appointment and came away with a plan of care and general women's health advice.
: I contacted my MP and raised the issue of women being deterred and refused from seeking basic and essential healthcare from their GP. This led to it being raised at the CCG and the practice being forced to provide access to contraceptive services via other staff members who gave no objections

NaomiNagata really you don't think women's rights should ever trump religion.

I studied theology at a Catholic college. Do you know the things that the Catholic church were allowed to do to women over the years?

What they did to women who assisted in delivery of babies?

Women fighting for their rights, has imposed change on many religions.

Even the pope has asked for the church leaders to not get too caught up in abortion and contraception. These are the first steps towards change.

www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/catholic-church-ends-takeover-of-leadership-conference-of-women-religious.html?_r=0

This is a good article on the very small changed that are being made. Not sure how to make it a click, sorry.

So fighting for women's rights has changed religion. There will have lots of people who feel their religious rights are being trampled on by the women arguing for their rights. And yet religion still exists and women are, slowly, getting more rights.

Women's rights should not be left at a stand still on case it upsets someone's religious interpretation

It's actually very shortsighted on the part of the pharmacist. He must surely know that in refusing you the MAP, there's a very good chance that he'll be adding to the abortion statistics. An MAP must surely be preferable to an abortion, assuming he disapproves of both?

Absolutely agree. It could be argued that he had a hand in creating the situation that led to an abortion. He is part of the process by being a pharmacist, regardless of whether he gives the tablets or not.

I get what you mean about bodily autonomy being a concern of men, however it's almost always women who are impacted by these things.

I contacted my MP and raised the issue of women being deterred and refused from seeking basic and essential healthcare from their GP. This led to it being raised at the CCG and the practice being forced to provide access to contraceptive services via other staff members who gave no objections

That's great to hear!

How judgemental. How is this any different than the lady who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple? She was all over the news and got loads of shit for it (quite rightly).

I needed the MAP a few years ago and spent about 5 hours walking from one pharmacist to the next in a major city trying to find one that would have it in stock and agree to give it to me. In the end I had to give up on the pharmacists and go to a walk-in centre. It's all very well saying that individual pharmacists refusing medicines won't impact on patients but it's a significant problem if most or all of the pharmacists have the same opinion.

"I would hate for women's rights to be the banner we are waving when we start curtailing religious freedom."
The problem is that it almost invariably the other way round- religious freedoms are used to curtail women's rights.

@Shortstuff08

Read my qualifying statement. "Not unless their actions completely prevent us from exercising our choice".

His actions did not. The actions of a few people maintaining their religious objections do not infringe upon the rest of the populations rights to abortion and contraception. He was violent, he isn't imposing punishment etc. This is not the same as past crimes committed in the name of religion. This does not prevent you getting the medication you a entitled to ad there is a whole network to use.

Until the day comes where we cannot access the healthcare we need, then a few people being allowed to make their own choices is not an issue anyone needs to be creating.

*wasn't violent