To think if a pharmacist refuses to dispense medication due to religious or personal beliefs

[Soubriquet]

They shouldn’t be a pharmacist.

I mean, the morning after pill is healthcare. Your personal or religious beliefs shouldn’t come into this.

Vile.

Wow. 10 pages and still no context..

They shouldn't be working in those professions if their beliefs prevent them from prescribing/carrying out things that are legally allowed in this country. It's hard enough for most women to pluck up the courage to get the morning after pill, arrange an abortion etc without being judged by the healthcare professional who is supposed to be helping you. Are they going to refuse vasectomies? Refuse to treat gay men, no, I bet they aren't because it's always about persecuting women with these people. Do they know the history of all the medication they prescribe, how it's been derived, tested etc how do they know any of that isn't against their beliefs? I'm all for people believing whatever they want, it's a free country but if they can't leave those beliefs behind whilst they are at work then they shouldn't be doing the job!

If the patient can be signposted to another service then I don't see why it's an issue.

If we keep dehumanising the people who 'serve' us for want of a better phrase, then we're just going to have less people doing it, and we already have shortages as it is.

To remove a pharmacist from their role because they don't do one aspect of it is shortsighted, they're then not available to do any of the role, or to even signpost to another service which means that we're in a worse position than a pharmacist who doesn't do one aspect but gives information as to where it can be accessed.

Just seems a little controlling to expect people to put their beliefs aside for someone else when alternatives are available to access, all be it with a little bit of inconvenience. It's not really a big deal, and they could have to go elsewhere for a whole host of reasons - no stock, no pharmacist on duty, pharmacist already has too many people to see and prescriptions to dispense to fit someone else in that day.

And I have had to seek an alternative GP for a termination because my GP had religious beliefs that meant they couldn't provide me with the treatment I requested - they ensured I got a timely appointment with a Dr who could. I made two trips to the surgery instead of one, a bit inconvenient but it didn't stop me getting that treatment.

What I said is not 'vile'. It's an unpleasant thought, but it's true that legally it's not the pharmacist's responsibility, which is the only point I'm making. In reality if someone declared a dangerous situation you'd hope a HCP would help them, order them a taxi, call the police, whatever is appropriate.

I'm not naive at all. You're naive if you think employers would tell the pharmacist why they no longer want to use their services. Many pharmacists are self employed (as locums) so they would just stop using their services. Same with anyone who has worked somewhere less than two years as an employee. No reason needs to be given. Obviously if someone has worked there for longer than two years it would be more difficult but they would probably get rid of them before it got to that stage if they were refusing to dispense the contraceptive pill and there wasn't another pharmacist on the premises to supply it.

I agree it is a problem and as I said earlier, I think pharmacists who don't want to dispense certain medications should choose not to work in areas where this will have a big impact on patients. They don't have to work in chemist shops at all and if they do they should work where there are plenty of other chemist shops nearby.

They do have a duty of care to the patient though and if think if someone ended up coming to harm because they couldn't access alternative health care in time they would probably be in trouble.

You really need to brush up on your equality and diversity training

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/03/ethical-veganism-is-a-belief-protected-by-law-tribunal-rules

Equality and diversity is always pushed… until it’s women who are being negatively impacted. Then we’re told to just go somewhere else because our right to legally obtainable medication isn’t as high on the equality list.

I'm not sure that anyone has the "legal right" to obtain a particular medication from a particular supply. The NHS for example, refuses quite a lot on the grounds of cost.

I guess the same thing they’d have to do if the pharmacy did dispense it but it was genuinely out of stock?

People who only use pharmacies on an ad hoc basis seem to think they’re an Aladdin’s cave of medication & everything is always there 100% of the time; it’s not. As a regular medication user, I’ve regularly had the choice of either waiting 48-72hrs for my medication (worse since brexit & often longer if there’s a weekend in the middle) or getting a copy of my prescription & trying my luck elsewhere i.e. literally phoning around myself to see who has it & then travelling to wherever; having to do that is not unique to MAP users.

NO ONE WAITS 4 DAYS FOR MAP TO BE DELIVERED ONLINE, IT’S ALWAYS NEXT DAY DELIVERY!

Sorry to shout but it’s really irresponsible of you to be spouting incorrect information like that, a woman might read what you’ve written, think it’s correct & then when they need MAP, not even bother looking online as they think it will be too late by then. There’s no point advocating about women’s rights if you’re then going to feed them incorrect information which can also cause them harm.

Thank you for the clarifying! At least it’s consistent for once.

They have a right not to dispense the MAP. It's established in their code of conduct they just have to signpost you to somewhere where it can be obtained.

Dispensing the MAP represents a tiny proportion of their job and there aren't that many places in the UK where it would be impossible to travel to another pharmacy in a timely manner and postal delivery is also available within 24 hours.

This

Personally I think your comments are vile considering the personal stories PP have shared on this thread.

Pharmacists are health care professionals who should have a duty of care to their patients. This should not be happening in 2024.

.

YABU

I live in the USA, and this is a BIG deal for us right now. For my own part, I don't think that anyone should be making decisions on anyone else's health care, IN ANY WAY, based on their own religious beliefs. That should be a strictly "best medical advice" choice, and with pharmacists, especially, the choice was made by a licensed physician, which trumps a licensed pharmacist.

Strange thing to ask then not return within 10 pages

The point is it shouldn't be allowed.

All of the posts in support of the pharmacists on this thread are talking about respecting peoples beliefs and not being forced to do X because it's against their morals.

If they can get away with not providing care to women because of phony morals, I should be allowed to not provide care to rapists because that's against MY morals.

I fail to see how the 2 are different and yet legally discrimination against women is allowed but discrimination against rapists is not.

I don’t disagree in principle but it’s not ideal and there should always be another option for the patient and if there’s not like if they are the only pharmacist in the village then imo their religious beliefs need to be set aside for the patient otherwise they shouldn’t be in that position of responsibility.

I think it is different because they are refusing a specific treatment to everyone. If they decided some people could have it but not others based on a prejudice it wouldn't be allowed.

But if your refusal only affects 1 group - a protected characteristic group - that's still discrimination. I'm pretty sure thats the law - and only women need the MAP.

YANBU the morning after pill is legal.