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.

It really isn't. Take a step back and look at all the people on this thread saying that people should simply not be allowed to decline to do something to which they have a genuine moral objection.

You may be privileged enough not to have been affected yourself, but some women effectively are being denied health-care - when the only facility or provider available/offered includes biological males. Many women - whether because of their religious convictions (again) or maybe past trauma at the hands of men will then see no alternative but to self-exclude from the healthcare that should be readily available for their needs, but isn't.

How do you think it helped the healthcare of the poor woman who was raped by a male on her ward whom she was repeatedly gaslit that he was actually a woman, and thus she was 'obviously lying' about being raped?

How many women and girls are getting UTIs and other health complications - not to mention having to forego their basic human rights - because they are purposely avoiding using the toilet in public, as no female-only facilities exist for them?

Once you start climbing the ladder of forcing people to act against their own clear moral objections, that ladder can go on forever. You can't order people to stay on for the first three rungs, calling them ridiculous and batting away their concerns, and then suddenly stop when you reach the fourth rung that involves something that you morally object to.

Wait until the other MAPs (nothing to do with the morning-after pill) start to gain traction with their 'cause', and then you (and me, and many of us) are the one with the moral objection to accepting them wholeheartedly, who is nevertheless told to stop being stupid/petty/ridiculous/unprofessional/bigoted/discriminatory.

@wombat15 thats a good point and clearly the answer (should have thought of it myself 😁). It would rely on impractical rule changes though - eg if you refuse to dispense MAP because of moral objections etc and there is another pharmacy a few streets away which you can direct people to then that pharmacy closes for some reason, you can't be forced out of a job? What constitutes a reasonable distance for women who need it to travel to a oharmacy stocking the MAP? What if that judgement for someone in a rural community relies on a bus route to the nearest multi-pharmacy town but the bus route then closes or becomes impractical for the patient. It's not something the pharmacist has control over and it shouldnt force them out of a job.

Like you, I would hope a pharmacist who won't dispense contraceptive pills or MAP would choose not to set up shop in a community with no other pharmacists available but the decision on where to live and work is complicated and people's value judgements and priorities are different.

I believe in free access to all forms of legal health care and am pro-choice but unless society changes to be less respectful of religious freedom in general (which is probably not a society I want to live in even as an atheist) the idea of banning pharmacists from the profession for this is just not going to gain any traction.

Better access to healthcare and more healthcare options along with improved, more accessible and cheaper public transport will help this issue in a way where both sides 'win' as well as many others, but that's an expensive, complicated long term fix which people / this government don't want to invest in.

Yanbu I was denied the map years ago based on the pharmasists religious reasons

Luckily for me there were 4 boots stores close to that one but it could be a huge issue when the chemist shop is the only one nearby / convenient etc

To clarify on the above, I gather from what you've written that you ARE in favour of protected spaces for females only?

The point I am making is that this belief in basic biology is rapidly becoming the 'wrong' opinion to hold in many official and corporate bodies and organisations.

Today, it is a religious person's 'outrageous refusal' to prescribe the MAP; tomorrow it is anybody who 'outrageously refuses to accept' that a male-bodied person who says that he is/has a certificate bearing a legal fiction is female, because of 'some hateful ideological aversion to accept what the rest of society knows is correct'.

Ref this earlier comment:
"I respect your assertion that this is not a problem in Britain (given the long history of no legal abortion in Northern Ireland, I don't want to say UK)."

In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, abortion was permitted in restricted circumstances before the 1967 Act in Great Britain widened the availability of abortion to allow it upon request by the woman, provided two doctors signed and certified it was for legally specified reasons.

I thought they went through this with the gay cake and said they had to make the gay cake? Or am I incorrect.

If so I don’t see how pharmacists can’t dispense.

I wasn't suggesting a rule change. I was suggesting the pharmacist themselves should chose not to work in an a shop if it is the only one for miles around if they don't want to dispense certain drugs. There are many areas pharmacists can work in. They don't have to work in a chemist shop at all let alone in one where there are no others for miles around.

No. The ruling was that they could refuse to make a cake with wording that celebrated gay marriage. This was in contrast with if they'd refused to make a cake at all because they thought gay people were dreadful sinners.

So, pharmacists can refuse to supply the MAP (writing on the cake), but couldn't refuse to serve women.

I understand that technically they aren't doing anything wrong and also I understand that it's a slippery slope potentially but I hate that my life is inconvenienced by someone else's religious beliefs. If they personally don't agree with MAP, that's fine, I'm not asking them to take it! My taking the MAP has no effect on their lives whatsoever.

I've had no need for it for at least 10 years but before that I was refused service for it once, maybe twice.

One pharmacy in our town won't provide the MAP, but the pharmacist that owns it and works there has been a pharmacist since long before the MAP was made available through pharmacies.

YANBU. 15 years ago MAP (first and only time I've ever had to research it as I'd only previously had one sexual partner) was supposedly available to me via a google search at a nearby clinic. I was raped and the GP automatically assumed the reason I was seeking MAP was a result of consensual sex. It was never questioned by the Doctor that non consensual sex could possibly be the reason. I was told due to religious reasons (Muslim) they wouldn't prescribe MAP. I eventually reached the next available pharmacy (via bus as I had no driver's license at that time) on my next day off from work a couple of days later. Unfortunately by this time I had fallen pregnant (for the first and only time in my life) and was forced to have an abortion.

During this time, I unfortunately contracted HPV from my rapist and had a series of colposcopies indicating I needed LLETZ treatment to remove abnormal cells. I actually had a consultant refuse to perform LLETZ as I hadn't had 'my children yet' and there's a chance LLETZ can cause premature delivery. He insisted I spoke to the man who dropped me off at my appointment (my now fiance) before he would perform the LLETZ treatment. I stood my ground and whilst he did go through with the treatment, he didn't allow enough time for the anaesthetic to kick in according to the supporting nurse, and it was bloody painful!

This. ^ This stupid, narrow-minded, ignorant remark is boiling my piss to be honest. 'Just go to another pharmacy!' Just assuming everyone has got multiple pharmacies within pissing distance that they can just trot to at the drop of a hat! As I said, if the pharmacist in MY town refused someone any meds, the next closest pharmacist is 12 miles away. And there is NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TO IT.

So much ignorance, and so many stupid remarks from a few people on this thread! SOME PEOPLE ONLY HAVE ONE PHARMACY IN THEIR TOWN. (And many of them don't have another one for MILES!) Capiche?!

It is a bit different as pharmacists have a duty of care towards patients. So okay to refuse if the customer can walk down the street and buy it elsewhere but if the next chemist is miles away, the patient can't get there that day and therefore is unable to access the MAP in time to prevent pregnancy it is a big problem. Assuming the pharmacist is not the owner their employer would be very unimpressed too.

I was once refused a blood test by an NHS nurse at my doctors surgery. When I arranged the appointment I explained what it was for - to be tested to go on the bone marrow donation register. The nurse was all set then once she realised what it was for stopped and said this was something she can't do, but she did go and find a colleague who could. I didn't push for an explanation.

Jeez, is this shit still happening? This happened to me years ago evenin was denied map, due to the pharmacists religious beliefs. I was young and naive in those days and didn't question it, but thinking it's still happening is outrageous. The guardian needs to do an expose on this to force change. Honestly, a woman's rights should trump everything else - it leaves women in such a vulnerable spot.

It’s perfectly legal to open a vegetarian restaurant, or to stock whatever one wishes in one’s own shop.

Pharmacies are businesses. If the NHS wants to contract pharmacies, or specific pharmacies, to supply the MAP whenever there is any pharmacist on the premises, then the NHS will have to do that. Or the GPhC would need to change its code, but I can’t see that happening.

Or, of course, the DHSC could change the law on supervision in pharmacies and allow pharmacy technicians to dispense (anything, not just the MAP) and to supply under PGDs, which is what is about to/ has just happened. Quite what the consequences of this deregulation will be on public safety will become clear in time.

Essentially, every woman has the right to request the MAP (or any other treatment) but it is wrong to force any healthcare professional to provide it if they have an ethical objection. The problem is how to ensure equitable access.

a woman's rights should trump everything else

I disagree. Nobody’s rights should trump everything else.

I have no issue with someone refusing to prescribe MAP so long as there is another colleague present who can. I don't see how it's more ethical for a woman to potentially have to go through an abortion because they couldn't access MAP in time.

I agree with you in one sense, but I also disagree. I feel that someone's freedom to express their religion ends where that expression impinges on the life of another person. Don't want to dispense the MAP? Don't be a pharmacist. Don't want to work in abortion care? Don't go near Gynie. Many other career paths are available.

She’s Catholic and will find ways to justify using contraception because that suits her! It infuriates me how she cherry picks which bits of her religion she follows but has arbitrary power as a pharmacist to deny other women their bodily autonomy. She’s my childhood best friend and we’ve had many heated discussions about it over the years.

They're not doing this off their own bat.

It is long-standing, explicit NHS policy and it means they can hold these jobs with the conscience clause (which is defined and has not "crept" in the decades it has been in existence - since the 1960s I think)

Yes, NHS in each area also has a duty to ensure the full range of services is available, so no patient should be left high and dry.

As an aside, there's a growing shortage of pharmacists (people are beginning to find that dispensing services are shorter hours or some cases they close over midday because lunch breaks cannot be covered; and its getting harder to find locums to cover holidays).

So a separate thing to take from this thread is that it's going to become commoner to have to wait for pharmacy services (just at the time the government is encouraging us to use them more) or to find them closed.

I think that’s way too extreme. Dispensing one medication is a tiny element of a pharmacist’s job and nobody’s going to suffer because the odd gynaecologist won’t perform surgical abortions when the majority will. It’s crazy to expect people to make career choices on the basis of a miniscule part of the job.

I do wonder if the reason for the intolerance in our secular society is because it’s seen as a religious choice rather than one of conscience. I don’t think there’d be nearly so much pushback if someone said something doesn’t align with their moral compass so they’d rather not do it.

I have a moral issue with rapists and child abusers.

I am not allowed, as an advanced practice Nurse, to refuse to treat people of this nature.

Some bullshit about everyone being entitled to my care and it being my job and to leave my personal beliefs at the door.

So why are misogynistic pharmacists allowed to bring their nonsense beliefs into women's Healthcare? I say nonsense because the MAP is not an abortive drug, so I call into question their pharmacy knowledge. There is no reason not to dispense it other than you want to control women.

Oh, yes, there it is.

Bullshit.

Agree! And I’ve told her so. We’ve had many very heated discussions about it over the years. She argues that she can’t be discriminated against because of her religion when it comes to choosing a profession. I argue it’s the exact same discrimination she’s dishing out to other women.

I’d be curious is she is strict about other aspects of her religion? Most religions say no sex before marriage, did she wait for marriage? Then there are dietary restrictions, specific sabbath days, fasting etc. I tend to find that most religious people who stick to the rules about abortion or emergency contraception tend to ignore quite a few of the other rules.