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?

So you think it would offer a better service of care if anyone who believes that this type of contraception/abortion is wrong either:

a) No longer works in their chosen healthcare profession. Resulting in a drop in the number of Drs, nurses, pharmacists etc in this country.
How many of our excellent and highly trained healthcare providers have strong beliefs? You want them all to retrain and leave the NHS understaffed? Really?

b) is forced to act against their beliefs. Resulting in a professional who is thoroughly against what you are doing treating you.
Would you like to have your abortion (or for your daughter to have an abortion) carried out by a nurse or a Dr who was strongly against it, and upset at having to do so? Is that better patient care?

Or of course there's option 3, which you are so against, go to another pharmacy/be treated by another healthcare professional.

Which of those options do you prefer? Because I don't think popping into another chemist is worth either of those first two options if I'm honest.

Would you like to have your abortion (or for your daughter to have an abortion) carried out by a nurse or a Dr who was strongly against it, and upset at having to do so? Is that better patient care?

That’s a fairly poor example as the issues are with the GP referring for abortion. That said I couldn’t care less if they’re unhappy to do so. It’s their job.

If we’re applying it to the issue in question which is the MAP? Yes I think they should prescribe it against their beliefs. I mean don’t want the MAP or abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t deny women their rights because of your belief system.

It isn't a poor example.

If the law is changed it is highly unlikely to be as specific as "pharmacists giving out the MAP though". It's much more likely to be a broader "healthcare professionals must act against their religious beliefs in such and such a circumstance.." or something along those lines.

You know. For me this isn't about how this issue would affect the "MN" demographic.

So considering me and the OP and many of the women on this thread we are able to speak up for ourselves. We have the finances, support and voice to do so.

We should be considering what allowing someone to opt out of dispensing on religious beliefs could mean for the most vulnerable people trying to access these services.

Sure - for me going to a different pharmacy is inconvenient. How about a 14 year old girl? Or an abused wife? Or someone who is defying their OWN religious/cultural pressures to gain access to the MAP? Or someone who has limited income? Poor education?

THOSE are the people we should all be standing up for when we're saying actually, it isn't ok for you to pontificate as some sort of moral arbiter when you're in a caring profession.

What jacques said

You can't be the "moral arbiter" and decide that their morals are invalid.

The vulnerable women of society aren't going to suddenly no longer be vulnerable because everyone is forced to hand out the MAP. That those women are in the situations they are in is horrific, but denying people their rights won't solve anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Absolutely, Jacques.
I will never need the MAP. This problem will never effect me. Even if I was refused the MAP, I could get in my car and go to the next pharmacy.

However I think back to me as a sexually active 16 year old in a village with one GP and one pharmacy. I can see my mum asking if I want to go with her to the supermarket at the weekend and I see that as my one chance to get to the pharmacy there. I wander off while she is shopping and ask for the MAP. But no, because of the pharmacists religion I can’t have it.
No chance for the rest of the weekend as the only pharmacy in the village is closed on a Sunday. No public transport so I can’t get into the town. For the rest of the week it’s directly onto the school bus to school and home again. No chance to get to another pharmacy.
This didn’t happen to me, but it could have done. There are many reason that one pharmacist refusing could leave a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. It is not his choice to make. As said up thread, his church isn’t going to pay for that child.

Would you like to have your abortion (or for your daughter to have an abortion) carried out by a nurse or a Dr who was strongly against it, and upset at having to do so? Is that better patient care?

I would exepct people in their jobs to do it to the best of their ability. I would like them to leave their personal opinions at home and recognise that MAP and abortion are valid choices.

It sounds like you are saying people who object on religious grounds couldn't be trusted to not risk their patients health and/or lives. If that's the case and they purposely perform an abortion poorly I protest, they shouldn't be trusted to practice at all.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is if the person carrying out the abortion believes it to be a baby whose life they are helping to end, they might be visibly emotional. If you've made the decision to abort I would doubt that you'd want someone crying when they are assisting or carrying out the procedure. I don't think that is good care.

I think healthcare professionals should be able to opt out of procedures that they disagree with to stop this type of thing from happening, as surely it would make it more difficult for the patient.

JacquesHammer exactly. It's our responsbility to stand up and be counted. Because not everyone is able to.

NotAnotherHeffalump I would expect a health care professional to keep it professional. And respect that it's not their body and therefore not their choice. They are there to do a job. They should do the job.

The vulnerable women of society aren't going to suddenly no longer be vulnerable because everyone is forced to hand out the MAP

Did I say that? But if they don’t access the MAP they could be even more vulnerable

I think healthcare professionals should be able to opt out of procedures that they disagree with to stop this type of thing from happening, as surely it would make it more difficult for the patient.

So would that count for any reason? Or only religious ones? What if they disagree with smoking so refuse to perform an operation on a smokers lungs?

Healthcare professionals need to be professional. As with any other job. You're not hired to give your personal opinion on things, you're hired to do the job. Fully.

I disagree with the way halal meat is produced. Would Tesco let me sit on the checkout and refuse to sell it to anyone. No.

If I were vegan could I refuse to sell meat to anyone? No.

Fucking makes my blood boil, this.

If this is still a legal reason to refuse service, it needs to change pronto.

I was surprised last year when my two teenage dds were advised to have Mirena’s to help with menorrahgia. As they were only 15&16 it was decided they would have them inserted under a light GA in hospital.
Their gynaecologist works at a Catholic hospital and rang me on the day to say could I bring the girls in later (8 pm) so they could be last on the list as a staff memeber had objected to the girls having a contraceptive despite them needing it as a last resort for extremely heavy periods affecting how they were functioning.
Was shocked really. The skeleton staff who had volunteered to stay behind really looked after the girls well but clearly weren’t used to being in this position.

Really don’t believe that this would ever be allowed to happen with any male-related medical issues.

Sometimes, I wonder just how much we have moved on from the 50’s at all

Surprised by this you would think there would be some kind of guidelines/industry policy to prevent it, if it was religion.

To those saying would a Jehovah's Witness doctor refuse to give blood I'm sure they would refuse, but this would be a very rare character for that very reason. My Nan's family are JW and I am familiar with their congregations, never met a JW doctor, the occasional nurse but never a doctor.

Really don’t believe that this would ever be allowed to happen with any male-related medical issues

I agree. I think what's shocked me more is how many women, think it's ok that it never seems to impacts mens medical issues.

I have mentioned several times on this thread, that it would be interesting to see if a person who objects to MAP on religious grounds would refuse to advise an unmarried man advice on erectile dysfunction.

So many women have posted 'yeah but he may not feel as strongly about sex outside marriage'.

They seem to think it's a coincidence that religious objectors hate the MAP and abortion (which impacts only women) but don't mind sex before marriage. They wouldn't dream of not treating a man for a medical issue. And people can't see, that yet again it's religion impacting women rights.

I'd complain simply because the sign was wrong and caused you unnecessary distress and wasted your time. It should say "sometimes available".

Some people aren't able to provide it.

Some people don't want to for their own reasons. People are allowed to do no harm in their own business. Just as you are free to choose another pharmacy, they are not providing you with emergency care they are selling you things from their shop.

It doesn't have to be religious reasons and they didn't say it was, but actually religious reasons would be fine. If people aspire to live in a country where people cannot have personal conscience on the big ethical issues and where the law dictates what your spiritual worldview may/may not be, think on this: the reason we have religious freedom in the first place is to avoid that sort of horrible thing, which has happened here before and happens now in theocracies elsewhere, the problem being that whichever worldview you choose to ENFORCE, someone will end up getting the shitty end of that stick.

If you run a pharmacy it is reasonable to expect you to provide all services, or to find a way to provide them that will not involve inconvenience or cost to your customers. If you can’t do that, you should not take the job. Simple as that.

ImAIdoot totally missing the point. People can have any view or ideals they want. They can live how they want. When that spills into their professional life and impacts others.....that's not ok.

The Pharamcists charter, linked on page 3 of this thread, advises Pharamcists that decisions on treatment must be made using professional judgement only.

Can you name one other reason, other than religion, that you find it acceptable to refuse a person, their chosen medication?

And yes someone gets the shitty end of the stick. Can you tell me why it's acceptable that it's women? Why religious freedom is allowed to impact women's freedom of choice? What is it about religion that gives it this automatic status?

The other name for the MAP is emergency contraception, that's how they advertise it. Its been discussed many times on the thread, that just going elsewhere isn't an option for all females.

Can you name one other reason, other than religion, that you find it acceptable to refuse a person, their chosen medication?

I'm not a pharmacist, but I know one person who would on no account provide the contraceptive pill because they follow studies on the hormonal effects and consider it harmful. Could be something like that. I'm not the one making the assumption here.

And yes someone gets the shitty end of the stick. Can you tell me why it's acceptable that it's women? Why religious freedom is allowed to impact women's freedom of choice? What is it about religion that gives it this automatic status?

Freedom of choice doesn't extend to other people, though, does it? Just as you are free to choose to do a thing, someone else is free not to hand you the tool to do it with so you can get it from someone else. The best of both worlds because everyone is in control of what they personally do and don't have to actively facilitate what anyone else does. Emergency care it is not, you can simply go somewhere else.

Surely we don't have to start making up analogies where you are compelled not only to tolerate in, but actively take part in other people's choices that would not be yours? I can't believe you would want compulsion to do what you think is wrong to be applied equally to you, so why would you want it applied to anybody else?

“The best of both worlds because everyone is in control of what they personally do and don't have to actively facilitate what anyone else does.“

No they don’t. They can not be a pharmacist. There are plenty of other jobs. Or they can ensure that there is always someone else available to do the jobs they won’t, without incurring cost or inconvenience to women.

Just as you are free to choose another pharmacy, they are not providing you with emergency care they are selling you things from their shop.

As has been explained countless times going to another pharmacy is not all that simple for many people especially young girls and vulnerable women, the very people who need it most.

And why should a religion trump my rights? I’m vegetarian but if I took a job in a supermarket and said that as a vegetarian I refuse to sell meat I get a very short shrift. Yet if I said that my religion prevented me from doing that it would be fine.