Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

461 replies

Shortstuff08 · 30/07/2018 15:33

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?

OP posts:
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:29

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.

Is this actually true? Was sucb a provision intended to instantly disqualify people and have them stop running their businesses of they choose not to provide some particular medication in a context where the consequence is losing a customer who has to go somewhere else that day? If so, fair enough, but I don't think we can assume that, any more than we can assume a religious conscience being behind it.

SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 07:31

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?

But this is exactly what is happening. A woman is making the choice to buy the MAP, she is having to actively take part in a choice that would not be hers by being refused it on religious grounds.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:31

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.

You would be free not to sell meat in a context where you got to choose what the shop would sell, and people who thought you should be compelled to do so would be wrong

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:32

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.

I am not making an assumption. Whether this pharmacist refused on religious grounds or not isn't the point. The point is that it seems to be ok in general. To me, this is not ok.

You know a Pharamcist who refuses to fill prescriptions that have come from a GP, that is a licensed medication because they think their opinion on side effects, over rules everyone else's. Look at the link on page 3. This person you know is making an unprofessio so judgment and is not complying with their job regulators. They are bad at their job. And their personal opinion on medication, isn't a good reason to refuse it.

The Pharmacist is part of the proces. because he is a pharmacist. If he refuses MAP and the woman feels unable to, or can not, go elsewhere and she ends up pregnant. She may go on to have an abortion. Therefore he has been part of that process. If he doesn't want any involvement, then he should never have made the choice to become a pharmacist. He exercised his right when deciding his career.

As I said before, the link on page 3, states pharmacist must use professional judgement only.

And why is it so hard to comprehend that not everyone can just get to another Pharamacy. And why is it always the women's responsibility, to do the extra work?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 02/08/2018 07:33

Don't be disingenuous. It's not just a matter of "a customer going somewhere else that day" it's about controlling women's bodily autonomy and imposing religious beliefs on others. I will defend a person's right to practice their faith-but they have no right to impose it on others.

SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 07:33

Im.
They know when they trained to be a pharmacist that part of the job would be dispensing contraception and the MAP.
They still chose to do a job which they actively refuse to do part of.

It’s like someone training to be a vet but refusing to treat cats.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:34

But this is exactly what is happening. A woman is making the choice to buy the MAP, she is having to actively take part in a choice that would not be hers by being refused it on religious grounds.

  1. She was not refused it on religious grounds
  2. Only if you twist words to the extreme. Sometimes a shop won't stock or serve some item to anyone for their own reasons, going to another shop is fine, they are not forcing you to do anything one way or another, they are just choosing not to provide it themselves.
  3. If pharmacists are obliged to do this thing or quit as Bertrand says, it's all moot anyway.
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:36

They know when they trained to be a pharmacist that part of the job would be dispensing contraception and the MAP.

I can get on board with the "part of the job" argument as that makes sense - small point here would be that many pharmacists will have trained/qualified before MAP was a choice they had to make, so that wouldn't apply to them all, it would be more a case of the job changed leave.

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:38

She was not refused it on religious grounds

That's unclear. And it doesn't matter if I personally wasn't allowed. The process shouldn't be allowed. As I have said, this isn't really about me. It's about the other women who can't stand up for themselves. Or can't just get to another Pharamacy.

OP posts:
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:40

Don't be disingenuous. It's not just a matter of "a customer going somewhere else that day" it's about controlling women's bodily autonomy and imposing religious beliefs on others. I will defend a person's right to practice their faith-but they have no right to impose it on others.

Definitely not being disingenuous at all. Notwithstanding that it may be their legal obligation to provide it (which seems odd as you have to be allowed to by the looks of it), I think confusing active provision from your business with restriction is a boundary issue.

I have the right to run a slaughterhouse. You have the right not to sell me knives and spiky mallets on my way to work if you're a vegan run ijng a shop, fair enough everyone gets on with their day.

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:42

I can get on board with the "part of the job" argument as that makes sense - small point here would be that many pharmacists will have trained/qualified before MAP was a choice they had to make, so that wouldn't apply to them all, it would be more a case of the job changed leave

It's been available for many years. So many will have trained while it was available.

I would imagine most, would just put another provision in place, rather than leave their profession or close their business.

In the case here though, the pharmacy is a big chain. Not a personal business. They are surely in their rights to say 'only employ Pharamcists who offer the the full services'.

OP posts:
Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:44

You have the right not to sell me knives and spiky mallets on my way to work if you're a vegan run ijng a shop, fair enough everyone gets on with their day.

It's not the same at all.

I am shocked the lengths people will go to, to make this not a women's issue. The lengths people will go to to justify women's right to choose can be squashed.

OP posts:
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:45

In the case here though, the pharmacy is a big chain. Not a personal business. They are surely in their rights to say 'only employ Pharamcists who offer the the full services'.

Assuming that was practical for a moment, would this lead to people of certain religions being less likely to be offered employment? Is that something we want to do, either?

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:47

Also if the vegan didn't own that shop and that shop was there to sell mallets and knives to people who run slaughter houses, would you still think they had the right to refuse?

Or would the fact that the shop is there for that entire purpose, over rule that. The pharmacy is there to provide medication of all sorts to all sorts of people. Only the professional judgement of the Pharmacist should be used. Not personal.

OP posts:
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:50

*It's not the same at all.

I am shocked the lengths people will go to, to make this not a women's issue. The lengths people will go to to justify women's right to choose can be squashed.*

I want to be really clear because I realise that could sound off, I wasn't picking that example to liken anything to anything else or shock anyone, I was picking something that is not morally wrong in any sense from my perspective that someone else might really strongly disagree with. Please don't infer any judgment or insult from that, none was meant at all.

corizinogi · 02/08/2018 07:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 07:54

Also if the vegan didn't own that shop and that shop was there to sell mallets and knives to people who run slaughter houses, would you still think they had the right to refuse

If they ran the shop exclusively on those grounds they would just be an idiot so the analogy falls down there.

If it was part of the potential customer base then absolutely yes. Of course.

I think where your argument would be incontrovertible is where it is an absolute legal obligation for pharmacists. If that's the case, fair enough. I can't see how the charter cit3d makes it so if there is additional paperwork you must have, though.

And there's another point - freedom of conscience and religion are super important because we all suffer without them, but this could come down to not having the requisite forms or supplies.

Nomorechickens · 02/08/2018 07:54

Good on you OP for pursuing this on behalf of other women

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 07:58

Assuming that was practical for a moment, would this lead to people of certain religions being less likely to be offered employment? Is that something we want to do, either?

They aren't being not offered employment on the basis of religion. It's on the basis that they can not fulfil the job description. That they can not exercise complete professional opinion when deciding what medication to give out. Which is what they need to do.

OP posts:
youarenotkiddingme · 02/08/2018 07:58

Having personal views is entirely reasonable.

Refusing medical care in a country where the care is legal and authorised on your own moral grounds is disgusting and dangerous.

I think examples like the gp surgery where only 1 gp will prescribe the pill is absolutely scary.

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 08:02

If they ran the shop exclusively on those grounds they would just be an idiot so the analogy falls down there.

Why an idiot? There are 100s of very specialist business out there that only provide to one trade.

A Pharamacy is there to provide medication to those requiring it. Freedom of religion comes hand in hand with the freedom to not have religion impact your life and decisions.

Women have a legal right to access MAP. His religion and personal opinion impacts that's choice.

OP posts:
Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 08:03

Good on you OP for pursuing this on behalf of other women

Thank you.Smile

OP posts:
SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 08:03

1. She was not refused it on religious grounds

She might not have been. Many women have been.
This argument isn’t for the OP but for all the other women and girls who get refused the MAP on religious grounds.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 08:10

They aren't being not offered employment on the basis of religion. It's on the basis that they can not fulfil the job description.

This idea has been floated in favour of a lot of discrimination, though. If a limitation comes from being part of a protected group aren't we really still discriminating?

SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 08:19

Right. I’m off to start a new region that says no one can work past 3 in the afternoon. Who’s with me?