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?

@JacquesHammer

I've been in this kind of debate before and yes, some peoppe would bave trouble. For that reason, I backed a campaign to prove every woman with the MAP for free once a year automatically, so that we would all have one in our house just incase. But the arguments against were coat, wastefullness and the whole "it might encourage vulnerable people to be more reckless" issue.

There isn't a perfect answer, but I am steadfast in my belief that forcing people to do it and removing their freedom is definitely not the answer.

*provide

There isn't a perfect answer

Well yes there is. It’s ensuring medication is available to those who need it when they need it

but I am steadfast in my belief that forcing people to do it and removing their freedom is definitely not the answer

I’m gobsmacked to think anyone who uses their own beliefs to decide what a woman is allowed to do with her body deserves “freedom”. They already have freedom to worship completely freely. Using their religion to ascribe morality to situations isn’t freedom. THAT is the oppression you mentioned.

Your rights were not taken from you. But if you get what you want his rights will be taken from him

As an atheist my belief is I can take MAP. As a religious man his beliefs are I cannot. The law states MAP is legal.

Why then are my atheist beliefs superseded by his? Your rights have been taken away.

@MarcieBluebell

Having her rights taken away would mean she could not access it at all. She can. She just can't in that particular pharmacy on that particular day. And that is a price worth paying for a free society.

I do not want to live in a country where we can't make choices to ease our own consciences. Where we can't express how we feel in our actions. Where we are forced to take part in and assist with acts we find abhorrent. That would be a much worse country that one where you need to go to certain pharmacies.

Hope you all enjoy tour communist, fascist way of life. Because that's how they ruled.

@JacquesHammer

"I’m gobsmacked to think anyone who uses their own beliefs to decide what a woman is allowed to do with her body deserves “freedom”. They already have freedom to worship completely freely. Using their religion to ascribe morality to situations isn’t freedom. THAT is the oppression you mentioned. "

Absolutely this!! This is not about their freedom, its about them applying their own morality/beliefs to someone else's situation. I actually cannot believe that in this day and age a woman can be denied her right to medication due to someone else's PERSONAL beliefs. It is absolutely disgusting and I am sorry OP you had to go through this.
And as someone else said - had this been a scared and terrified 16 year old girl - how disgusting that this pharmacists PERSONAL beliefs could have shaped the rest of her life! !

She just can't in that particular pharmacy on that particular day

It is time sensitive. Do you understand that?

Yes, but you have 72 hours. Obviously you don't even want to go past the first day... But that's still enough time to get a bus.

If you want to make it a law that if they refuse, then that pharmacy must pay the taxi fare to and from the nearest pharmacy who will dispense it then wouldn't that be a fairer compromise than taking away someone's freedom of expression?

If they don't want to dispense, then they can pay the travel costs to another pharmacists. Or they can have 2 pharmacists on staff, or relax that rules so that another member of staff can dispense. The sales staff already need to sit exams in the sales of medicine... how hard would it be to train up another member of staff just for this one drug?

There are other solutions which don't involve removing rights from the people on the other side of the debate.

There are other solutions which don't involve removing rights from the people on the other side of the debate

As long as the woman has to work for it huh? That’ll teach her to be sexually active.

If you want to make it a law that if they refuse, then that pharmacy must pay the taxi fare to and from the nearest pharmacy who will dispense it then wouldn't that be a fairer compromise than taking away someone's freedom of expression?

A taxi there and back then absolutely.

Although far better not to force their archaic beliefs into the work place I would have thought.

I’m an assertive woman. If it happened to me I would deal with it. I would also be making it very very clear across social media what had happened. Not illegal right? No infringement of their rights, huh?

"There are other solutions which don't involve removing rights from the people on the other side of the debate

As long as the woman has to work for it huh? That’ll teach her to be sexually active."

Yep. This.

NaomiNagata The pharmacist is not being 'forced' to take part in and assist with any acts he/she finds abhorrent. No one is being 'forced' to do anything.

When he - using he for ease of writing - looked into the idea of becoming a pharmacists, or when he qualified and took up a position as a pharmacist he must have realised that there were things he might be asked to sell that would conflict with his religious beliefs.

At that point he was perfectly at liberty to say to himself, actually there are things about this job that make me uncomfortable and conflict with my beliefs, clearly I am not a suitable candidate for this sort of profession.

No one forced him to become a pharmacist.

The OP wanted to buy a product that his shop sells. Why does his right to withhold that perfectly legal product trump her right to buy it?

He is one individual, an individual who has the self appointed right to make this decision over the needs and rights and wishes of every woman who goes into that particular shop to buy that particular product.

It's utterly ridiculous.

@JacquesHammer

If this was a debate purely limited to the dispensing of medicine then no one, other than the religious nuts, would object. We would all agree that they must provide it.

But unfortunately it is not just limited to this once instance. It will set a precedent for the removal of our liberties. For the removal or our freedom of expression. And that is not a precedent we want to set. For the greater good, his right to refuse needs to stand.

It's already happening- the bakery example for a start. They didn't harm the gay couple or make any personal comments etc. They were as respectful as they could be in their refusal. But look at how they are being treated. They wanted to choose not to support a message, but because it's seen as very un-politically correct, they are being dragged through the courts. No one should be forced to support a message, no matter what it is.

If someone wanted a derogatory statement iced on a cake, no one would care that they refused. But they refused to ice a slogan supporting gay marriage... so they get hanged for it. No matter how wrong I think they are, they should not be forced to support something they do not agree with.

It is scary that that is happening.

It will set a precedent for the removal of our liberties

So women take the hit? Because however you want to dress it up this is a femal issue.

Nah, can’t even begin to see how that can be justified.

So hey, doesn’t matter if Emma, aged 16 can’t access the MAP as long as Bob aged 43 wants to bring his religion into the workplace?

@pigsDOfly

What about all the GP's who won't refer for abortion?
What about all the Muslims who need to take time away from their position in order to pray during the day? Should they be banned from professions where emergencies might arise whilst they are praying?

When there are alternatives, there is no need to force someone out of a profession because they want to live by their beliefs. We could have laws to ensure there is always a staff member able to provide it, we could have laws forcing them to pay the transport to another pharmacy. Why is it you are fighting so hard to make the first solution be the one which chips away at our civil liberties?

When they start coming after us for peaceful protests, for speaking out agasint the royals or against the sitting prime minister... who will stand up and say no? There won't be anyone if we've made it acceptable for them to remove our freedom of expression.

We should never choose that esteem option when there are other workable solutions available.

The only precedent it is setting is for the removal of our right to have control over our own bodies.

How the hell can an individual pharmacist have the right to take that control away from any woman anywhere.

@JacquesHammer

So when our rights to protest are taken away, you'll be fine with that? When we are simply not allowed to disagree with anyone, you'll be fine with that?

It's a women's issue because we carry the children. No one can do anything about that. But we could make it "over the counter" like viagra, so it doesn't need a pharmacist, and just train the staff so it's still safe to hand out. There are other easier and far less dangerous solutions.

But the first thing a population wants to give up to solve every problem is out liberties. Happens after terrorist attacks, after pandemics. And it's frightening that you'd give them up for this when there are work arounds.

naomi I honestly can see where you're coming from.

The thing that I can't make peace with is- If it was the other way and as an atheist, hypothetically, it meant I didn't believe in giving out medication to a religious person I think your opinion would be different.

Because I'm not fascist I would do it.
Why isn't he a fascist not permitting other beliefs and accepting they can live differently?

I don't think it comes down to fascism at all but our democratic laws!

What you're saying is religious beliefs are more important than atheist beliefs and woman's rights, even though both are core to our convictions ect.

Again I do accept that we all want a tolerant world. I just wish emphasis was on everyone allowing for this.

NaomiNagata Of course no one should have their rights removed to do the job they choose or their right to pray etc.

But equally they shouldn't have the right to refuse something to a woman because they don't believe these things should be available.

Why do their rights trump the woman's right.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to do the job. But if you're doing the job, you have to accept that you can't cherry pick the bits of it that you'll do and those you won't.

Why are their liberties more important than the woman's liberties?

Yes, but you have 72 hours. Obviously you don't even want to go past the first day... But that's still enough time to get a bus

The longer you wait, the less effective. And not everyone has the money to get a bus. You just don't get that so many people live in poverty. And why should it cost a woman more as she has to travel to chemist.....again.

When we are simply not allowed to disagree with anyone, you'll be fine with that?

I don’t give a shit who disagrees with the MAP. But if you’re knowingly taking on a role where you might be required to dispense it, than actually you should find a way to be comfortable with that or maybe assume the role isn’t for you. Exactly the same as a GP who won’t refer for abortions (another female issue, funny that).

Your comparison with viagra is disingenuous because the MAP requires more intimate details/instruction and potential after care than viagra.

@Shortstuff08

But why are you so certain that this is the only solution?

What if the pharmacy was made to pay for their taxi to and from another pharmacy. Would that be acceptable to you?

What if they allowed it to be treated like other drugs and be dispensed by the pharmacy staff and not just the pharmacist? Have them study and take an exam in the sale of that medicine (like the do for other medicines). Then there will always be someone who can safely provide it. Would that be an acceptable solution?

Or is your only acceptable solution the one which also eats away at our liberties?

Why do their rights trump the woman's right

Because woman are always bottom of the pile.

Or is your only acceptable solution the one which also eats away at our liberties?

An erosion of liberties would be “you’re not allowed to worship”. Not “if your beliefs are impinging on others rights to access medical care, then this isn’t acceptable”

@JacquesHammer

When I had an abortion, the 4 female GP's refused to refer. But all of the male GP's would. It was a town in South Lanarkshire with a large population. But only the male doctors would refer.

Sometimes men are not the enemy.

I did not mention people disagreeing with the MAP. I mean disagree with anything. If you start removing freedom of expression, it ends with all of us being stripped of our right to speak out against the Government or the cooperations who control them.

It's a stupid thing to give up any civil liberty when there are easy solutions. My sister worked in a pharmacy; she had to sit a lot of exams in the sales or medicines. It is absolutely possible to train the staff and have them sit examinations to make it safe for them to deal with instructions and aftercare.

But no... let's just give up our freedom of expression. It's easier.

@JacquesHammer

Freedom of expression is definitely a liberty. And it is one which we do not want to risk losing.

But you seem to be too stubborn to accept that maybe other solutions are worth trying first.

If they didn't work, then I'd maybe change my mind. But I wouldn't change it before trying those things first.