Mum refused emergency contraception. Because pharmacist doesn’t agree with it. Grrr.

[Evenquieterlife33]

I cannot get my head around this- if a medication is available for legal sale and use in the U.K no pharmacist should be imposing their personal beliefs on anybody and refusing to sell it to them. Absolute piss take in my opinion. It’s outrageous that this is legal. I have never heard of women being refused emergency contraception because it clashes with the pharmacists personal beliefs until I read this. I am got smacked. I bet I could find a pharmacist who doesn’t like to dispense antibiotics, I can’t see them being able to turn people away. The older I get the more of this shit seems to be visible. It’s either getting worse or I’ve had my eyes shut for a very long time.
apple.news/AsxAxgpzIQI-IZWwX5YbJRQ

I get the idea of an opt out clause. And I can see why we need it in law. But when you don’t give a woman MAP because you don’t agree with it and it doesn’t impact your own health or life in any real way, and she then either doesn’t get that medication in time or it doesn’t work because of the delay, or you cause her to be in danger, or you damage her mental health, you should have a bloody hard look at your principles. Because your principles are doing harm and causing distress. One persons religion should not directly affect the health of another person.I agree with PP’s that any pharmacy that doesn’t fully support women by having MAP fully and freely available should have to publicly signpost. They should have to list the time table for staff who will provide and update this when it changes. They should also state that they do not provide male contraception any contraception etc at all. Girls or women who are refused should absolutely not be forced to travel. The pharmacist should have a cover available who will come in and hand over the drug to them. Or they should pop someone in a taxi with the drug from another shop and bring it to them. Even better let’s just put it on the shelf and cut out the middle man. If America can have it on the shelves as PP said then I don’t see why we can’t. In all honesty I think that pharmacists who choose not to give women the medication they need shouldn’t be doing the job. It’s not for them.

And if you are in a village and you are the only pharmacist then I’m sorry but tough shit. You provide a Public Health Service for the NHS they should be told you provide or you go to an area where there is permanent cover.

Yea I'm also not buying that it's not just plain misogyny.

If it were really about religion they wouldn't be able to do the job at all as they wouldn't in good conscience agree with providing medicines that can abort or otherwise harm a pregnancy, provide the regular pill or condoms or viagra or medicines containing pork or beef or other ingredients against their religious practice - yet we never hear of that happening!

I'd much prefer if they were legally required to just do their damn job!

But failing that they should be required to clearly advertise that they conscientiously object to this - that way not only do those in need of these prescriptions know but the rest of us could choose whether or not to support that particular pharmacist - I know I wouldn't and I'd be contacting the manager of the establishment and telling them so!

Pretty sure if it started majorly affecting their profits they'd soon change their tune!

“Pretty sure if it started majorly affecting their profits they'd soon change their tune!”

Yes. People should vote with their feet, don’t give them business, I wouldn’t buy anything from a pharmacy that refuses.

I had a broken condom incident a few years ago when I was living in a major city and got refused the MAP on religious grounds at one pharmacy, told I couldn't have it without speaking to the pharmacist which would require an appointment (but there were no slots left until the next day) at a further two pharmacies, and the rest that I could get contact details for / travel to stated that they didn't have it in stock. I remember trying at least 7 pharmacies.

I resorted to taking the train to the walk-in centre / A&E in the next town over in the evening because I couldn't find any other option. It was utterly ridiculous - a waste of my time and risk to my wellbeing, and a drain on NHS resources because I ended up in out of hours A&E services.

No professional can be forced to perform a service that they are morally/ethically opposed to - and that’s right and proper in my opinion, in a democratic society. So we should not force a pharmacist to prescribe something that would conflict with their beliefs

Registrars are not allowed to refuse to officiate at same sex marriages.

There are opt outs for abortion but the Supreme Court held that two Catholic midwives did not have the right to avoid supervising other nurses involved in abortion procedures.

Hold on...firstly the MAP does not prevent conception. I took the MAP a few weeks ago. It only prevents ovulation so if you have ovulated and then had sex sperm can live for 5 days after sex and you can still become pregnant which is why the MAP isn’t 100%

Bolshy dickheads in their pajamas 🙄

Registrars are not allowed to refuse to officiate at same sex marriages.
I remember the news stories about one registrar who claimed it was against her religion. The only problem with that argument is that a civil marriage isn't in any way religious. That person would have had to have refused to marry divorced people in order to be consistent.

Also, I seem to be fixated on this as a possible solution but: why not sue? If a woman is denied a medicine she needs and has paid for, it results in possible health issues and certainly stress and upset.
Sue the bastards, they will suddenly not be able to justify their policy of permitting refusenik pharmacists to work solo. Which would mean there would be a serious cost implication to having pharmacists on duty with religious or moral objections.
Then the problem is put back in the hands of the NHS/Chemists with regard to coverage, respect for beliefs and availability of healthcare within an NHS Trust area.
The balance between permitted beliefs and providing a service can be had by the bodies responsible for maintaining both. At present it looks like offending staff who hold certain beliefs is potentially more damaging/expensive than failing to provide healthcare services as a result.
They really only care if you hit them in the pocket.

There are some examples of conscientious objections for doctors given in law- like in the Abortion Act. Detail here:www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/personal-beliefs-and-medical-practice_pdf-58833376.pdf
I get why that right is needed and would defend this right to conscientious objection both for a personal choice for the doctor and to protect the quality of care for the woman.

But this is different to a pharmacist giving out over the counter contraception - which by definition isn’t causing an abortion but is just preventing a pregnancy. So where is the legal right of conscientious objection given to that? (I can’t find one but IANAL)

Under the equality act could a woman not sue the pharmacist for sex discrimination, given a man wouldn’t have been treated the same way? Or sue them for some other harm if she becomes pregnant (and were able prove that the refusal and then delay caused it?)

Just seems so outrageous that women can’t rely on being able to access this medicine which is so time sensitive. I agree that as a minimum there should be a massive sign up in any pharmacy saying ‘we don’t offer this service’ if they don’t.
That at least allows women to avoid that particular pharmacy.. but actually I don’t think it’s OK that pharmacists can legally refuse to sell this medicine at all. If they don’t want to ‘dispense’ it they should allow the woman to buy it off the shelf herself, not require her to find another pharmacy.

Metro reports that The General Pharmaceutical Council’s guidelines states that pharmacy professionals’ religion, personal values or beliefs may influence their ‘day-to-day practice, particularly whether they feel able to provide certain services’.

This includes; contraception (routine or emergency), fertility medicines, hormonal therapies, mental health and well-being, substance misuse and sexual health.

However, it also advises pharmacists to ‘recognise and value diversity, and respect cultural differences – making sure that every person is treated fairly whatever their values and beliefs.’ To ‘recognise their own values and beliefs but do not impose them on other people’.

And to ‘take responsibility for ensuring that person-centred care is not compromised because of personal values and beliefs’

metro.co.uk/2019/06/18/pharmacist-refused-give-morning-pill-sunday-personal-reasons-9972138/

Here’s the guidance in full: www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/in_practice-_guidance_on_religion_personal_values_and_beliefs.pdf

The GPC should be outlining how all this fits in with the Equality act in this guidance which they do not appear to do... and hopefully this type of refusal will be tested in court. From this GPC’s survey analysis paper before the above guidance was approved it seems that some pharmacists want more clear info around how that would work with EQA too:

www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/consultation_rpvb_2nd_report.pdf

www.pharmacyregulation.org/news/gphc-council-approves-guidance-religion-personal-values-and-beliefs

This is quite common.

I also think it's wrong.

I think if it's a privately run pharmacy owned by the pharmacist and they clearly advertise the fact that they don't provide the full range of service based on religious beliefs then fine. But I have seen this in big chain pharmacies. It is allowed because they dispense MAP at their discretion. So there's plenty of wiggle room to refuse.

Disgusting. They should not be allowed to be a pharmacist. Dangerous too imho

I support professionals (or anyone for that matter) not being forced to act against their consciences, and think it’s very important to preserve that principle.

On this issue I think:

• the NHS have a duty to ensure that emergency contraception is freely and widely available to all women
• they have chosen to contract most of this provision out to private businesses (even large chains are private businesses) therefore cannot compel every private pharmacist to prescribe.

I think the buck stops with the NHS to ensure adequate provision of services, but the answer isn’t to deny private individuals their freedom of belief.

I'm guessing when hiring a pharmacist you couldn't refuse to hire one even if they made it clear they would be refusing to do parts of their job.

support professionals (or anyone for that matter) not being forced to act against their consciences, and think it’s very important to preserve that principle.

As others have said, don't go into the profession if you are going to be morally unable to do your job.

I used to be a patient at a Gp practice where one of the GPs wouldn't prescribe contraception. It wasn't an issue because there were other doctors in the practice.

But I can see how for emergency contraception with only one pharmacist there it can be more of an issue. Guess the idea is though that women have the option of other chemists.

Cwenthryth that's what I was trying to say

I think each local healthcare authority should be monitoring availability of emergency contraception and ensuring that provision is adequate - if their contracts with private pharmacists are not sufficient then they need to come up with alternative provision, whether that is through OOH services, wider availability of specialist sexual health services etc. Or even think outside the box - provide online video consultations, prescription authorised remotely (not locally - so not dependent on an unknown individual to actually prescribe/sell) for collection or immediate/next day delivery etc. But the duty here is on the NHS to ensure provision, not private business/individuals.

I think each local healthcare authority should be monitoring availability of emergency contraception and ensuring that provision is adequate - if their contracts with private pharmacists are not sufficient then they need to come up with alternative provision, whether that is through OOH services, wider availability of specialist sexual health services etc.

Absolutely. The question is why is the provision of emergency contraceptive treated differently by pharmacists.

IANAL but there is probably an ‘case-by-case accepted discrimination’ type solution this as well - ie requiring pharmacists employed in specific situations to be able to prescribe emergency contraception - in the same way that you can discriminate on grounds of sex for employing women in women’s services, or in grounds of belief when employing for eg. a religious institution etc.
But I think this would need to be proportional - ie for specific roles required to ensure adequate provision, not a blanket ban of people with specific beliefs being effectively barred from practicing as a pharmacist

Very specific there sorry

You cannot be too specific sometimes.

What gets my goat is that it’s acceptable to discriminate against women in these cases, but I’m not a lawyer and am very much pro choice, so very much biased.

it should be well advertised on any listings & big sign in the shop; they should have an arrangement with a nearby colleague who is able to prescribe.

Absolutely this. If there are services you won't perform, it should be made clear. So I can go to another pharmacy to get the endless plasters/paracetamol/lotions and potions because I don't want to give my service to a pharmacy which doesn't support women.

It's very much part of the job for high street pharmacists, it's not like those going into these jobs don't know this, which makes me for one question why they go into the job in the first place. There are plenty of other even pharmacy based roles where this wouldn't be the case yet they don't choose those jobs.

I hold by my original stance, if you are unwilling (because it IS a choice) to fulfill the role fully

DO NOT DO THE JOB

Same goes for other hcps choosing to go into general practice or even worse gynaecology and sexual health if they hold such beliefs.

I think it makes their motivations for doing so highly suspect.