Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 08:19

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?

No, because they still have the choice. Either act in a professional manner and abide by the charter. Or do another job.

There will be many people working these jobs who are religious. But they can separate their professional opinion form their personal one as they are required.

It's a question of 'can you make decisions based on professional judgement only?'.

Many religious people manage it everyday.

OP posts:
Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 08:20

SimonBridges me please!

OP posts:
C8H10N4O2 · 02/08/2018 09:10

I find it fascinating that every time this subject comes up, a women's forum has so many voices falling over themselves with whataboutery to justify the curtailment of a woman's liberty.

This isn't about religious liberty its about women's rights which are actively being curtailed right now in 2018 in a first world country. Not only that the curtailment is being carried out by businesses funded by tax payers money from those women.

This is about women's health and well being. It is not a zero sum game.

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 09:46

C8H10N4O2 me too.

On this thread I have been called an oppressor, told that womens rights should not trample on peoplea religious rights (when has that ever happened?), told it was my responsibility to question him further, that all women just find asking for MAP and going somewhere else easy, that I should not have emailed the company in case the poor man gets into trouble (Why would he if he hasn't done anything wrong) and that I should have taken the time to investigate before even approaching the company.

Apparently it seems its not his job to explain properly. Just my job to put myself out to make sure I don't have any sort of impact on this man.

I don't get when religious rights are conflicting with women's rights, why so many people think religion is automatically the priority.

OP posts:
GinUnicorn · 02/08/2018 10:03

I think if you are religious and disagree with the morning after pill that is fair enough and there is no obligation for you to take MAP or have an abortion.

However your religious views which I don’t agree with do not trump my right to medical services.

You can object as much as you like on a personal level and not take but your religion should not be brought into your work place and have a negative impact on women.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 10:15

It's not about maing one person's rights take priority over another so much as the opposite.

IF this person is exercising a right not to do something against their conscience (and we're making two assumptions there, a that they're not legally obliged to do it and b their reason is conscience) then we have a classic case of one person's rights ending where another person's rights begin.

Generally this is what a lot of the concept of law is for, ideally we tread quite carefully when deciding to take a person's rights away if they are not actually depriving anyone else of theirs.

Someone's consent in what they will actively choose to do shouldn't be taken away lightly, especially if it is something that might be deeply important or traumatic for them. If someone might die or be deprived of their freedom then maybe we can make the argument, but "I feel discriminated against and don't want to go find someone else to do this, which I remain free to do"... might warrant careful consideration.

SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 10:20

Someone's consent in what they will actively choose to do shouldn't be taken away lightly, especially if it is something that might be deeply important or traumatic for them.

Like having a baby they didn’t want.

Tiredspice2 · 02/08/2018 10:23

If this man objected on religious grounds then he is very obviously in the wrong job. He needs a rethink of career choices before his moral stance adversely impacts more lives.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 10:26

Like having a baby they didn’t want.

One individual refusing to take an active role in you doing something is materially not depriving you of your right to do it anyway.

They might be failing in their duty of care and legal obligations, that would be a better argument. Indeed who could argue with that.

If it is a matter where they can choose, then "I don't care whether you consent and I don't care whether this is important to you, you as an individual must take actions to participate in what I choose to do" is no argument at all. It's fundamentally unreasonable.

C8H10N4O2 · 02/08/2018 10:45

One individual refusing to take an active role in you doing something is materially not depriving you of your right to do it anyway.

Oh it absolutely is. The other point I find astounding every time this thread comes up is the assumption that a woman can "just pop along to another pharmacist". So basically empowered women can spout about religious freedom secure in the knowledge that they are theirs are ok and sod the disempowered women who lack the means or the autonomy to go on pharmacy treasure hunt games.

Like I said - this isn't a zero sum game. At the moment the pharmacist's opinion trumps women's rights. That is wrong.

SimonBridges · 02/08/2018 10:56

One individual refusing to take an active role in you doing something is materially not depriving you of your right to do it anyway.

Yes it is!
The woman in an abusive relationship who is only allowed to the supermarket.
The teenager who can only get to this one pharmacy because she lives in a small town.
The woman who knows this is against her religion and has spent the last 24 hours wrestling with her conscious.

One knock back, one refusal, one reminder of her faith could be all it takes to stop her asking again.

Did you not read up thread about the woman who had to spend and hour driving round to find a pharmacy? Did you miss the woman who saw a girl in a school uniform being refused?

One person deciding that their own personal beliefs are something they cannot overcome is potentially resulting in a woman having a baby she didn’t want.

BertrandRussell · 02/08/2018 11:25

Out of interest, how would people feel about a mortgage provider who refused to process a woman’s spplication? Or a till operator who refused to put a bikini through the checkout?

Lizzie48 · 02/08/2018 11:40

The religious objections are that the pharmacist would be aiding and abetting in preventing a pregnancy from happening, which Catholics believe is a mortal sin. So this would be true of any contraception whether male or female. Because life starts from conception and is always sacred.

Obviously it doesn't impact on a man so much as there really wouldn't be any urgency to buy condoms or to have the snip. Whereas the MAP is emergency contraception for obvious reasons.

Sex outside marriage is considered wrong, but it's not a mortal sin, the supplicant can go to confession and take holy communion. A lot of Catholics think that as long as they go to confession and say whatever number of 'Hail Marys', they are free to do as they like, unless it's a mortal sin. I'm not a Catholic, but that's how I understand it.

Unfortunately, Catholicism is a religion that has always been male dominated so women's voices have never been heard. The attitude to contraception has a lot to do with the attitude that women shouldn't want to have sex just because they want to, its only purpose is for procreation.

It's encouraging that the Pope has spoken against the traditional Catholic intransigence against contraception and abortion. But it will take some time to impact change at grassroots level.

C8H10N4O2 · 02/08/2018 11:45

preventing a pregnancy from happening, which Catholics believe is a mortal sin

RC doctrine is that artificial birth control is a problem, not that all birth control is a problem. With the development of more reliable hormone trackers that is actually quite significant in a way it wasn't 20 yrs ago. It could prove interesting for the Vatican.

manaftermidnight · 02/08/2018 11:48

preventing a pregnancy from happening, which Catholics believe is a mortal sin

Most catholics are just fine with it and don't consider it any such thing. Most catholics use contraception, many are supportive of abortion.

Original poster
Shortstuff08 · 02/08/2018 11:55

BertrandRussell apparently lots will find it ok. Because you can just go get another mortgage provider (I am sure people won't be able to get their head around the fact that getting a mortgage isn't just easy for some) and you can go to another checkout.

Apparently, that makes it all ok.

Lizzie48 it's interesting isn't it. Lack of contraception or contraception failure impacts women massively, therefore it's a mortal sin. Lots of men have been walking away, scot free, from accidental pregnancies for years. But the church doesn't tackle that.

Sex before marriage is just wrong though, not a mortal sin. Women who take part AND protect themselves are committing mortal sin. Men who take part in sex outside marriage get to just, say sorry to god?

OP posts:
ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:38

Out of interest, how would people feel about a mortgage provider who refused to process a woman’s spplication? Or a till operator who refused to put a bikini through the checkout?

In each of these cases, and in the case where a pharmacist is legally obliged to provide MAP, a person gives their consent to legal obligations, duty of care etc. by practising in the trade/profession that has them. So if a pharmacist actually has a duty to do this and refuses to do so, then it isn't a matter of consent.

disempowered women who lack the means or the autonomy to go on pharmacy treasure hunt games.

Very sad, but people do not have a right in general principle to compel other individuals they don't know to do things because of their lack of transport or whatever unless someone might die etc. Except in very specific emergencies, this is something you would have to agree to in a contract.

I think this all hinges on whether it is something a pharmacist is obliged to do legally or not, because then they have already agreed to it by practising.

If not, well their choice is their choice, even if others would like to control it.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:41

"Except in very specific circumstances like emergencies"

BertrandRussell · 02/08/2018 12:50

“It's encouraging that the Pope has spoken against the traditional Catholic intransigence against contraception and abortion.”

Has he? When?

BertrandRussell · 02/08/2018 12:51

“"Except in very specific circumstances like emergencies"

Why does it being an emergency make any difference to an ethical stance?

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:53

Why does it being an emergency make any difference to an ethical stance?

Because at the core of ethics is weighing up which is the greater evil, obviously.

BertrandRussell · 02/08/2018 12:53

And if you are the sort of religionist who thinks women should wear modest dress then surely selling her a bikini is condoning a sin?

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:55

And if you are the sort of religionist who thinks women should wear modest dress then surely selling her a bikini is condoning a sin?

Then somebody who forced you to do it would be committing a kind of assault against you, and robbing you of consent and freedom of conscience.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:56

That should read:
Then somebody who forced you to go against that and dress immodestly would be committing a kind of assault against you, and robbing you of consent and freedom of conscience.

ImAIdoot · 02/08/2018 12:57

Condoning a sin is one thing. Being compelled to personally commit one is another.

The obvious yardstick here is whether you are controlling what someone else chooses to do.