Boots policy on the Emergency Pill

[AssassinatedBeauty]

I've just read this article in the Independent and I'm astonished with what Boots have written as the reasons why they won't reduce the price of the emergency contraceptive pill. Has anyone else seen this? Apparently Superdrug and other shops have agreed to lower the price which is much more expensive than in Europe. But Boots won't, because pro-lifers wouldn't like it and women will use it inappropriately!

www.independent.co.uk/voices/boots-emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-feminism-women-inequality-inappropriate-a7849521.html

Boots's 'apology' includes a comment about apologising for the 'misunderstanding'. Disingenuous shite.

Personally (and I mean very personally) Iam anti abortion due to a horrendous incident as a teen. I respect others choice though and dont voice my opinion (well except just now) I think it's just because I've seen the side of it others haven't and it's vastly different if it's your own choice so my stance is both unusual and complicated.
To me, the MAP is a an essential 'tool' if you like which could reduce the number of abortions. If it was much cheaper and more easily available then it could help a lot more women and reduce the number of terminations.
Boots are just thinking of profit. Using the excuse about upsetting pro lifers is ridiculous as I suppose I could be considered one? I find it much more acceptable for the MAPs use than the alternative which is to terminate a few weeks later

Hearing this on the radio was one of those moments when I just froze with shock. I would describe my feelings as confusion, shock and slight anxiety. I'm surprised at how this has made me feel tbh.

I think you are reacting to the fact that Boots have stated, in other words, that they really, really, really hate women.

No wonder you are horrified! If someone with the power to really harm you states that they hate you, of course you feel threatened.

Most women probably just are better at pushing that unpleasant fact to the back of their minds / not translating the statement into what it actually means.

Why do people shop at Boots if there's an alternative nearby? Every item there seems much more expensive than supermarkets and no cheaper than small independent pharmacies. I stopped shopping there when I had babies and saw the prices of baby stuff, and then compared others.

So the high price of their MAP compared to others doesnt hugely surprise me, and tbey've just scored a huge own goal. Result.

Agreed StormFrontage

I didn't misunderstand their original statement. Their intention was perfectly clear.

These people talking about 'inappropriate use' probably haven't ever actually used it. I did once, and it wasn't something I'm going to want to do without very good reason - I felt sick for a couple of days, and the resulting period was long-lasting and unpleasant.

These people talking about 'inappropriate use' probably haven't ever actually used it.

I don't think that's the reason. One can read about the side effects everywhere - would be rather weird for a company that sells it to not know about them.

I am pretty sure that they are just being misogynist assholes while knowing full well that no woman ever will use the MAP instead of regular contraception more than once, if she has a choice.

More likely they consider the intended use of the MAP "inappropriate".

Perhaps they are of the opinion only the wives of rich men should be able to get the MAP, whereas women who are poor and possibly not even married ought to suffer.

I am pretty sure that they are just being misogynist assholes while knowing full well that no woman ever will use the MAP instead of regular contraception more than once, if she has a choice.

I agree

More likely they consider the intended use of the MAP "inappropriate"

You're right - it's the same line they use about women using abortion as contraception so it shouldn't be easier to access - as if any one would (The women who have had a large number of abortions probably need some kind of help with something going on with them or their lives, they certainly don't need vilifying)

Boots are just thinking of profit. Using the excuse about upsetting pro lifers is ridiculous as I suppose I could be considered one?

I think you may well be right. At pro-lifer on the AIBU thread thought so too.

Why do people shop at Boots if there's an alternative nearby?

(A)Superdrug (or Savers for non-medical items) are messy and downmarket and I can't find things.

(B)Superdrug and Savers don't stock the very expensive French foundation style facial sun screen which is the only facial one which doesn't give me spots.

So far as A - I will just have to get over myself and B- buy online.

vestal you are right. And it would be much more honest of Boots if they came out and said they wouldn't stock the product because they have problems with it ethically- whether one agrees with those ethics or not. The fact is, they think it's more acceptable to proclaim about the morals and behaviours of others than to admit that they are profiteering from women in a moment of need. I feel sick.

(The women who have had a large number of abortions probably need some kind of help with something going on with them or their lives, they certainly don't need vilifying)

Exactly.

Thinking about it, I wouldn't get the MAP from Boots after this even if they lowered the price. I mean, getting contraception from someone who thinks women should be punished for needing it? That would just not feel safe.
Granted, they are a big company, but imagine going to a small pharmacy to get the MAP and knowing the pharmacist thinks you should be punished ... laws will discourage most people from meddling with medicine, but not all.

I've just closed my online Boots account and will not shop with them again.

I rarely shop there anyway (mostly buy online and have a lloyds pharmacy over the road who are lovely) but will definitely avoid in future after hearing this on the radio this morning. Absolutely unbelievable.

Will check with DP and ask him to boycott too.

I'm assuming Boots' PR department is going to have a wonderful Monday. I got an automated response to my e-mail promising a reply in 2 working days.

Boots PR team have been on overtime !

I've got a reply. I'm just going out but will post it later.

Another positive for Superdrug is that they don't allow their own brand products to be tested on animals.

Sadly, I think a lot of forced birthers still believe that the MAP is an abortifacient, science not being something they're terribly good at. It's not an excuse for Boots' behaviour, but I don't doubt they have had letters from those types.

What LassWi said in every post.

I can't understand why if a woman suspects she may be in danger of becoming pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy how is she not celebrated and supported at every step in taking preventative measures? I don't get it.

If your pro choice it's great this options available, if you're pro-life this will spare a potential abortion situation.

For Boots to say they don't want cost to make this an easy option for woman who might then use it too frequently, is the same as decentivising woman on low incomes to proactively take steps to prevent a pregnancy she can't manage. Given most of their customers are woman it's hardly putting womans needs at the heart of their service.

I'm assuming Unemoon, you also complain about the benefits unmarried mothers claim to support the children they have? These may have been avoided at an early stage with better availablity of early prevention......Expecting woman to go ahead with a potential pregnancy that she can't manage or afford to appease your principles is a bit much.

This is the reply from Boots.

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to share your concerns.

Pharmacy and care for customers are at the heart of everything we do and as such we are truly sorry that our poor choice of words in describing our position on Emergency Hormonal Contraception (EHC) has caused offence and misunderstanding and we sincerely apologise. We firmly believe in the right of all women to access the EHC service with ease and convenience, and have long been at the forefront of increasing accessibility of contraception for women.

The provision of EHC requires a regulated mandatory consultation to protect women’s health and is a professional healthcare service provided by highly trained pharmacists. As a leading pharmacy, we will not compromise or undervalue this professional service. The consultation with the pharmacist is necessary to understand the patient’s individual circumstances and ensure we provide an appropriate, safe and effective medicine for her.

The pricing of EHC is determined by the cost of the medicine and the cost of the pharmacy consultation. We are committed to looking at the sourcing of less expensive EHC medicines, for example generics, to enable us to continue to make a privately funded EHC service even more accessible in the future. In addition the NHS EHC service where it is locally commissioned, is provided for free in over 1,700 of our pharmacies, and we continue to urge the NHS to extend this free service more widely.

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to contact us.

I too was shocked when I heard this. Surely it's entirely responsible and appropriate to use it if you want to protect yourself against pregnancy? What's wrong with using it a lot? I wish they would make an after the event pill you could always use rather than always being full of hormones.
Also when I heard it someone was saying they wouldn't even give it to a woman who had used it too many times!! And that was supposed to be the consolatory view to lowering the price! I just thought am I missing something here or are women actually being punished financially for using contraception and preventing unwanted pregnancy which is actually responsible?
I know it's not as effective (I think) but why would that affect the price?