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.

As long as there is somebody else mmediately available then I don't see a problem.

The patient shouldn't have to travel 3 miles or wait for 2 hours to get the medication they have been prescribed

1. MAP only become available OTC in pharmacies in 2001 so if you trained before that, there would be no way of knowing that dispensing it was expected of you. Prior to that it was only available directly from a GP or nurse (in a family planning clinic) & had nothing to do with pharmacists.
2. During pharmacy training, you are clearly told you do not have to dispense any medications that are against your beliefs so it’s no good saying “it’s part of their job” when they were told otherwise because yes, they might not have spent time & money pursuing that career path if they were told differently
3. There is a huge shortage of pharmacists as it is, removing the ones that object to MAP is only going to make the situation worse for everyone else while not getting women the MAP they need any quicker
4. Taking the stance of “it’s their job” is a slippery slope as you never where society is headed in the future. At the moment, you need to be 18 for gender transition surgery but how long do you think it will be before the age is lowered? Should highly skilled surgeons then be forced out of their jobs because they object to cutting healthy body parts off a child who want to transition because they didn’t foresee that this is where society was headed when they entered medical school?

I get that, but what I mean is that controlled drugs could kill if misused whereas the most that the MAP would give you a headache or make you feel a bit sick. I don’t see why it can’t be picked up as easily as condoms

What’s to stop a man picking it up & then slipping it to his partner without her knowing?

There's a huge shortage of pharmacists. I think we should value them a bit more and be grateful for what they do.

The NHS is doing a recruitment drive for overseas pharmacists, like many other professions.

I can't see this getting any easier. It is definitely something that needs to be looked at.

Termination/abortion care is as far as I know the only area of healthcare you are able to opt out of. I am OK with that because I'd rather not have somebody doing something they don't feel comfortable with.

The issue is that pharmacists give it out themselves, so they essentially prescribe it. It is high dose hormones and not suitable for everyone so definitely not OK to be over the counter.

I think it’s acceptable. Healthcare professionals are allowed to be conscientious objectors, if handled correctly.

If you're pregnant with a very much wanted baby - or if you didn't know that you were pregnant, but would definitely have wanted the baby - and you take the MAP by accident/mistake/given it without knowing/forced to take it, it can indeed have very far-reaching consequences.

If it were a drug that would only prevent something that everybody agrees is always unpleasant and clearly unwanted - such as a cold, headache, back pain or such - with no other potential side-effects, there wouldn't be the same problem. However, pregnancy (or even potential pregnancy) very much does not carry that same universal sentiment: for some women, it's their biggest dream come true; whilst for others, it's their worst nightmare.

Staff with these beliefs should have to work in a large pharmacy where there are at least 2 pharmacists (and the other one is happy to prescribe) they shouldn't be allowed to work in very rural locations where the nearest pharmacy could be many miles away. Same with GPs who refuse abortions, they should work in a large practice where many other GPs a women can see.

It is ridiculous though. A nurse was suspended for discreetly demonstrating her religious beliefs by wearing a small cross necklace, which had no significant impact on patient care. Yet people can use their religious beliefs to not provide appropriate medical care, and thats allowed. Its bonkers!

There's a pharmacy near me that doesn't dispense birth control. I go elsewhere because of this (always will do even though I'm not even on birth control any more).

I don’t know how people don’t know this.
It isn’t pharmacists getting qualified and then deciding not to do part of their job.
It’s enshrined in the job before they even start that they will have the right to decline to prescribe certain things. So they are fulfilling all parts of the job since this part is effectively optional.

I remember being told during my nurse training, that the only thing we are allowed to refuse to do on religious grounds. Was assisting with abortions. But we had to care for the woman before and after the procedure.

Just in case anyone googles this in future in a panic - the MAP (Levonelle and Ulipristal/EllaOne) will not interrupt a pregnancy, but it's not recommended to take when pregnant, probably obviously.

But @VincentVanGoth there are many other reasons why a medicine should only be provided by a trained HCP - previous ectopics, high BMI, outwith the recommended timing window for that specific method, ongoing advice about long-acting contraception. The MAP should not be used regularly so no, it shouldn't be on the shelf next to the condoms and toothpaste.

I don't think any religious beliefs that stop someone from doing the whole of their job should be allowed. The law should be amended to reflect this. And it should be the same in any profession. Want to be a registrar? No exemption from marrying gay couples. Working in a cafe and vegan? Serve the customers their cheese sarnies. Bollocks to the lot of it.

Yes- this was widely publicised when the MAP became over the counter, and it’s logical considering that hcps can object to doing various treatments/procedures on religious grounds.

People like to think religion is no longer relevant and RE is a waste of time but actually religion permeates basically everything.

Staff with these beliefs should have to work in a large pharmacy where there are at least 2 pharmacists (and the other one is happy to prescribe) they shouldn't be allowed to work in very rural locations where the nearest pharmacy could be many miles away.

There is a huge shortage of pharmacists, the most likely outcome of what you’re suggesting is that the pharmacist wouldn’t be replaced & these rural locations would just have to make do with no pharmacy at all i.e. forcing everyone to travel many miles.

It's a shame if pharmacists refusing to do their jobs are holding people hostage like that.

@veilstone as explained above, they aren’t downing tools and refusing to do their jobs!
Some parts of their jobs are effectively optional including map, therefore they are opting not to do it.

How would we cope as a nation without the pharmacists and doctors who perform 99.99% of their other functions?

if it’s in the pharmacy they should hand it over to the customer. If they don’t object to having medications on the shelf they shouldn’t object to selling them.

Are there any other parts of the population we should afford pharmacists the opportunity to discriminate against?

They are not refusing to do their jobs nor are they holding anyone hostage.

@FlexIt post above explains it very well:

I don’t know how people don’t know this.
It isn’t pharmacists getting qualified and then deciding not to do part of their job.
It’s enshrined in the job before they even start that they will have the right to decline to prescribe certain things. So they are fulfilling all parts of the job since this part is effectively optional.

It isn’t any population though is it? It’s having the right to hold a value about an act, not a person. They’re not refusing to sell paracetamol to black people or Jews.

I do think it's a bit worrying that there's less knowledge about this right, and how it disproportionately affects groups who are less able to access healthcare.

For example, women living rurally or in underserved communities, women in controlling relationships, women living in poverty, women with anxiety or other conditions where refusal might put them off looking elsewhere, or who may have not sought care until late in the window of effectiveness.

It should be possible to ensure that all women have easy access to the MAP by literally mapping provision so that GPs and practice nurses can dispense instead if necessary. Do pharmacists have to register their objections so that service availability can be evaluated?

Or do we shrug, assume it's nbd and they can always get an abortion if they get caught out 🤔

I agree with you there Ditalini and think this info should be freely available and clear.

What happens if it’s an emergency and a blood transfusion is required and the JW surgeon is the only one on duty eg small hospital in Scotland? Unlikely scenario but possible?

Sacked by who? Most pharmacists own their own business.