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.

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 it will interrupt/prevent a very early pregnancy, whether that's the intention or not - that's the whole purpose of it.

Sorry for any confusion, I wasn't referring to a pregnancy that is further along.

The MAP does not end an early pregnancy at all. If you’re already pregnant, the MAP won’t do anything. It doesn’t end a pregnancy.

It can prevent implantation if implantation has not happened yet. It wont end it if it already has.

Want to restrict female-only spaces and services to women and girls only, because of your 'bigoted belief' that a man who claims otherwise is NOT female...

No, only to women. In most situations that would be considered secondary discrimination and illegal.

But they’re not refusing the woman, they’re refusing to supply a product.

Yes, MN as a whole is very anti-religion, but many seem to express their belief that nobody should be allowed to live their lives according to their personal religious convictions with an almost religious fervour!

In that situation the JW surgeon would be expected to perform the blood transfusion.

I think the outrage is misplaced, in very rural communities (e.g. the highlands) the GP can supply, and this really isn't a widespread issue among pharmacists. It's pretty rare for anyone to object. You can also get the MAP online now.

Just a side note. When this comes up I always remember learning this…

“Note that there is no evidence that oral EC is effective if ovulation has already occurred.”

Just something to consider. Technically not the same as abortion ethically speaking as it prevents it happening in the first place. Fine line I know there is fertilisation in the tube etc but it surprised me when I found that out.

I think if no other option within reasonable distance they should have to sell it. Allow the person to ‘sin’ if they want to make that decision.

And what would the implantation very likely lead to if it weren't prevented...?

As a pp said, in this country we are allowed quite a lot of freedom in beliefs. Some people believe terminating pregnancies is wrong (not saying I believe this).

The professional bodies of healthcare professionals allow their members to conscientiously object to participating, under strict guidelines.

Are we saying that people should be denied the right to honour their beliefs? In their jobs, people should be directed to do something they believe is wrong?

The person needing the treatment just gets it elsewhere. Quite rightly, the treatment is widely available but individual practitioners are allowed to not want to be involved.

@Whatevershallidowithmylife It wouldn't happen because its predominantly nurses that put up blood and there tends to be a lot more of us but I did have a colleague who was JW (in remote rural Scotland funnily enough) who asked if could put blood up for her patient, she would do it if there was no alternative.

I'm not sure that makes sense. NO pharmacy at all will prescribe the MAP to any male person - is that discrimination too?

Oh that's good. Is there evidence of this? Has someone done an equality impact study?

Do we have figures and a distribution map of those who object? Does it affect some communities more than others?

Are objectors more or less likely to work solo or in larger pharmacies?

There are many areas, often very urban that are more underserved for health services than the Highlands.

I did consider online provision but it's a time sensitive product so probably not ideal to get in the post.

That’s why it’s secondary discrimination- they are refusing to provide a service only needed by women, thereby disadvantaging and denying services to a group with protected characteristics (in this case sex).

It’s within their rights in this case because it’s (aiming to) balance the rights of the pharmacist with the rights of the protected group- but similar treatment would be illegal in many other situations.

We’re not talking about other contexts though are we, so you’re making a moot point. 🙄

No, for 2 reasons.

1. because the group of people they will prescribe to are those who have a medical condition it is effective for- it isn’t based on a philosophical viewpoint or a belief system. They also wouldn’t give it to a woman who was 8 months pregnant or had had a radical hysterectomy because they don’t need it, they can’t get pregnant.

2. Female sex people can change their gender and have that recognised by the government gender recognition certificate, therefore becoming male in legal terms and still be given the MAP- therefore ‘men’ can get MAP.

The GPhC and NHS also both say women should be able to access MAP. They are prioritising forced birther beliefs over the health needs of women and fudging it by pretending there is always an alternative location. Women are not even pregnant at the point of taking MAP.

You can't always get what you want, somehow its always women who can't even get what they need from our healthcare system.

I do get what you are saying, but surely that's better than the people saying 'they shouldn't work at all' - as you say there is a shortage of pharmacists.
But the risk to patients of not being ble to get the medicine they need also needs to be considered, and this risk would be mitigated by those with strong views working in a multi pharmacist venue, such as a large boots, a hospital pharmacy etc. It would be a balanced approach

I know that- I was just pointing out that it is an exception to the usual way of things, nothing else.

Then you quoted me, so I responded to you.

Maybe next time you think someone is saying something pointless, just ignore it and don’t invite further discussion about it.

Exactly. Same for nurses and doctors. And I say this as a humanist without a single religious bone in my body. People should have the right to object to assist or partake. Just go elsewhere.

But providing MAP is an OPTIONAL service for practitioners which is the part you’re missing, it is not or never has been mandatory.

The OPTION to get MAP OTC in pharmacies became available in 2001 but there is nothing to say a pharmacy has to be supply it, many just don’t stock it.

Thank goodness we live in a country where people are entitled to have different beliefs and (within limits) act upon them.

Though reading this thread is pretty depressing on this front

What’s the difference between this and a gynaecologist refusing to perform abortion on moral grounds? I can’t see the problem, it’s not as if there’s a shortage of pharmacies.

Presumably, the pharmacy specifically order in all their own supplies depending on their anticipated dispensing requirements - and they don't just get a big mystery job-lot labelled 'Drugs' delivered every week.

If there's nobody in the pharmacy who is willing to prescribe the MAP, why on earth would they have them on the shelf in the first place - just like a vegan restaurant wouldn't have beef burgers in the freezer?