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.

I agree. Why would anyone choose a job that involves something they morally object to? I don't expect a vegan to work in a butcher shop. A pharmacist needs to dispense drugs as needed/prescribed. Not according to their personal beliefs.

I didn't say you did, I said a PP (past poster) seemed to think this.

But the fact is, the pharmacist's beliefs can mean they don't need to dispense or supply the MAP. It's acceptable to the GPhC and the NHS, whether you (or I) agree with it or not.

At the very least, pharmacies should be clear when they have staff who won't dispense medicines due to their religious beliefs. The morning after pill has tight time-frames and the last thing you want is some poor woman needing help and denied care by the pharmacy because she got lumbered with the duff pharmacist and must then seek more cumbersome methods of terminating a pregnancy.

Exactly this. We have ONE pharmacy in my little market town - ONE. Next one is 12 miles away, and there is no bus there. It would be untenable for someone to try to have to go there to get their meds if they have no car. And some people don't have one, or any access to a lift. And as you say a MAP is time sensitive.

A Pharmacist who refused to dispense certain meds because of their beliefs should not be in that job IMO. Why pick a profession where you know that you probably won't be able to fulfil the role because of your religious beliefs?

@Mischance · Today 10:27

There are gynaecologists who abstain from performing terminations. It is a similar scenario, and if that is allowed, then pharmacists should be able to do similar.

As* *@Precipice said, these people shouldn't be in that job either!

In typical fashion, these type of beliefs only seem to affect womens health.

While I fully support the righs of women to access birth control, terminations etc I do also support the rights of medical professionals who dont want to assist with that.
Pharmacies are privately owned businesses (or a chain) and they can refuse service to anyone they want. If there isnt another pharmacist or medic there who can provide the service people should be directed elsewhere.

"people should be directed elsewhere".

Well, it's not people is it... it's women. Can you think of any religious restrictions that would find a man having to charge from one side of town to another so that the medical care he needs is effective?

"But yeah, they can't refuse to dispense anything if a GP has prescribed it! If they do, then they need sacking!"

They can. Part of their job is checking that a prescription is correct or safe for that patient.

When/who was this?

The first bit of careers advice I received was not to go into a role where you have to do something that you feel is wrong. A pharmacist who refuses to provide legal medicine is taking up a job that someone else could do properly.

I dont agree with any type of organised religion at all BUT I do support other peoples rights to their beliefs.
Yes, its women who are affected by this and I wish that werent the case but I dont think the answer is to force people to act against their religious beliefs. If they dont feel they can prescribe certain things something should be put in place to help women who need them.

YANBU. They should leave their beliefs at home and quit if those beliefs are leading them to deny people necessary medication.

But more care needs to be taken so that women who are blocked from their medical care can easily access it elsewhere, and if that means that the pharmacy is forced to pay for a taxi shuttle run to adapt around their pharmacist's beliefs, then they should be taking the hit.

I once had a Catholic GP who refused to prescribe the pill

I had this happen to me several years ago, I had to get a train to another pharmacy, I was crying and just an awful situation to be put in. I agree, if your religious believes stop you, you should look for another role.

For some people abortion is the taking of a life and they are allowed to have those views - it is not entirely illogical. Thank goodness that we live somewhere where they are allowed to hold that view and for it to be respected.

Totally agree.

Yes, this.

What about if somebody has been a HCP for decades, but then puberty blockers for trans children become 'a thing', to which they have a strong personal moral objection?

Should all GC surgeons now be forced out of their career if they don't wish to operate on people wanting healthy genitals permanently removed and replaced with facsimiles of opposite-sex genitals?

I read years ago about a surgeon who amputated perfectly healthy legs from people with severe MH problems that made them believe that their healthy legs were seriously negatively impacting their lives and/or trying to kill them. Should all surgeons who would not have done this be struck off?

What happens when euthanasia becomes law, as it no doubt soon will? Will medical professionals with moral objections not be allowed to decline to administer it? What about in highly contentious cases, as we've seen in other countries where it is legal, such as people being offered/encouraged to choose euthanasia simply because they are poor or disabled and can't obtain/afford housing with suitable accessibility adaptations for their needs?

It goes further than just healthcare too. Thinking of the 'gay cake' case - not just a Christian-owned bakery objecting to making a 'Happy Birthday, Gary' cake for somebody who happened to be gay, but declining to make a cake with a clearly political slogan affirming their support for (at the time not yet legal) gay marriage.

Of course it would be a very strange career choice to work in an abattoir as a vegan; but I've heard of Muslims who work in supermarkets where less than 1% of their turnover is alcohol - and they just ask a non-Muslim colleague to handle those sales, without any drama - in fact, in the same way that a 17yo supermarket worker would ask an older colleague to do the same.

I think it's an extremely slippery slope to state that anybody in any job who has any objections to any part of it - especially new developments that didn't even exist when they began their career - must resign or be sacked. As long as those with objections accept that others will not share them and thus don't stand in the way of patients/customers seeking somebody who will provide it for them.

I think this goes quadruple for anybody with (what were until recently standard mainstream) GC views who hasn't seen the bigger picture. So if you won't dispense the MAP, you can't be a pharmacist; if you won't acknowledge that a person has literally changed sex and must now be completely treated as the opposite sex, with no regard paid to the valid concerns and fears of those who are of that sex, you can't do... pretty much any job these days?

This sounds a bit like shit stirring or an urban legend to be honest. Notice how the OP hasn't come back to clarify if it's actually something that happened to her or if it's referencing a news story, and if so, in which country. Normalise giving context.

Well this really random statement with no context is a bit combative isn't it?

It’s the rules @Soubriquet , everyone knows this. A pharmacist can also refuse to prescribe or sell over the counter items for many other reasons (maybe any reason). This is enshrined into their jobs.

They should make the MAP more readily available - sold over the counter in the pharmacy for example, then any shop staff could sell it rather than just the pharmacist. Or the GP or local GUM clinic could dispense it instead.

It happened to me a few years ago.

I went to a different pharmacy where the pharmacist prescribed it with no issues and for me, it wasn’t a big deal, but for someone who had to get a bus or a train, trekking over to the opposite side of town would have been a nightmare.

I don’t think pharmacists shouldn’t have the right to refuse, but given the tight timeframe women have to take the MAP, having to faff about could have consequences for the women.

It is available OTC, but that doesn't mean any old 'shop staff' can supply it. Jesus Christ, there is a massive lack of understanding around pharmacy and medicines in this country. The pharmacist still has to supervise sale of Pharmacy medications, even if bought OTC. Same for co-codamol, certain types of Sudafed etc.

Oh come on. It's not that tight a timeframe, some MAPs work up to 5 days after intercourse. We don't need to blue-light women across the county.

Don't be dense. Among the cohort of women who need the map are those who have been assaulted and may not have had either the headspace or even the freedom to seek care until some time after intercourse.

It’s all very well saying don’t do the job if you don’t want to do it all but there won’t magically be enough other doctors or pharmacists to do the job without those that do object. We needs them for the massive rest of the job they do.