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

Only women can buy it.

When this happened to my friend (at Boots) she was not signposted anywhere else, she was just shrugged at

Fortunately there is another independent pharmacy five minutes walk away from the branch of Boots that refused my friend emergency contraception so she was able to be treated there

However she did say that had she been an embarrassed shy teenager rather than a bolshy 40 yo she would probably have been so utterly mortified to be treated like that (in Boots) that she’d have just gone home and hoped for the best

This policy of places like Boots employing people who want to refuse to do an essential part of their job because of whims and notions about what imaginary people who live in the sky might say about the essential aspect of their job that they would prefer not to do ta undoubtedly perpetuates more human misery than it prevents

This is why i no longer shop at Boots (did i mention this?)

Plus their falafel wraps taste like dogshit

✌🏻 Deuces ✌🏻

emergency contraception is such a tiny tiny aspect of the role.’

And that’s part of the problem. If the pharmacies were to lose more money due to the refusal to sell it then we wouldn’t be here.

It’s all about money.,

@Breathlessness I know. But they’ve no issue with the woman as they’d happily sell them other items. It’s the product that’s the issue.

And what if being pregnant is a threat to the woman's life - or does that not count? In relation to risking ending a life, doesn't the MAP prevent ovulation, meaning that conception doesn't take place? How is that any different to preventing sperm from meeting egg by using a condom?

Yea I always wondered how they weighed that up. Pregnancy can or birth in certain conditions can kill you. And if the pregnancy or birth doesnt the abusive boyfriend or ex that you are tied to for the next 18 years just might. 2 women a week are killed by their partners after all.

How is that very real risk to women outweighed by a baby that might not even exist for another 5 days.

Remember the case if the woman who died if infection because drs refused to terminate the baby even though it had zero chance of surviving, the heart just hadn't quite stopped beating. It's not ok to kill something that hasnt even formed yet but killing 2 further Down the line is ok.

In.sorry but I cant see it as anything but punishing women for sex. And they didnt make this baby themselves but men arent treated this way.

They have an issue with women if they refuse to sell something only women have need of.

‘If the pharmacies were to lose more money due to the refusal to sell it then we wouldn’t be here.’

That is the answer. If we all asked our local pharmacy if they provide the MAP and, if necessary, shifted our business to one that does provide it I’d imagine Boots and some of the other chains would look more closely at who they hired.

I am shocked by this thread, especially the big store names.

I’m on cerelle to stop life impacting heavy bleeding, you can’t stop me getting the pill. If my friends/family ever needed emergency contraception and it was refused I would be fuming.

I don’t think naming individuals who can and can’t provide these services is the way to go.

I do however think there should be huge flashing signs on the chemist at all times stating they don’t provide these services to women. I wouldn't be going there for anything

If a pharmacist can not prescribe due to their beliefs, 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.

A pharmacist wishing to apply this exemption should not be rostered on emergency/out of hours services where they are working single-handed, as it often means the next nearest pharmacy is some distance away and not everyone has access to a car or the means to pay additional public transport or taxi fares. It would be a nightmare for rotas though and push a lot of unsocial shifts on to non-religious colleagues, which is a whole other problem.

Good point Ontheboard- many many women take the pill for heavy bleeding- I do myself.

I live in a one pharmacy village, the nearest pharmacy otherwise is five miles away. We have a pharmacist who won't issue contraceptive pills, but it's clear when she is rotared and there's always a second pharmacist in the practice before/after her shift same day. Yet if there weren't and you didn't have a car, buses are rare and couldn't afford a taxi, then what?

This is ludicrous, as pp have said surely this is exerting her religious beliefs on others. Nuts.

"they should perhaps receive less pay than other pharmacists that do 100% of their role" yep - bet a fair few of these "conscientiously objecting to providing" pharmacists would likely quickly change their tune then!

Joanna that is fucking outrageous! Aside from its your choice and perfectly legal what if you'd been raped? Women and girls shouldn't be having to defend and justify their requests for emergency contraception. I really don't understand why it can't simply be available Otc as it is in most countries where it's available.

There are far more dangerous drugs available otc there's not one good reason why it shouldn't be.

It absolutely is a feminist issue because the consequences of a lack of access primarily, some would say solely, affect women.

I've just googled "pharmacist refusal to sell viagra" and "dr..." not ONE story of this ever having happened and I bet it never would!

Yet the religions that are anti-abortion are also anti pre-marital and extra marital sex and yet we never hear of men being questioned by these oh so devout pharmacists and Drs about if they're married, if they plan on using the condoms or viagra they're buying with their wives do we? Of course not!

Because it's not really about religion it's about misogyny and judging women negatively for enjoying sex!

BlissfullyIgnorant - you're right, it's not comparable to providing prayer rooms and time to worship but I suspect my reasons for thinking so are rather different to yours. That is because providing prayer rooms etc doesn't prevent someone who isn't from that religion living their life as they wish.

"HOWEVER if someone wishes not to, I think it is up to them and like a lot of services they will sign post to the nearest point where it is available." As pointed out upthread exactly where does that leave women and girls who it's taken them all their guts to go to that first pharmacist? Who are very restricted in time/distance due to finances or abuse? Who live rurally where the next nearest pharmacist might be 5 or more miles away?

No! If you choose that as your profession AND choose to work in the community in a high street pharmacy where this is highly likely to be a frequent request from customers/patients then you set YOUR beliefs aside because you have NO RIGHT to enforce them on someone who doesn't share your religion.

I cannot think of any other circumstance where people who DON'T follow a particular religion are required to observe a tenet of it.

"at the very least find a local close chemist that can provide it and phone the chemist beforehand and make sure they have the product in stock and a pharmacist who will provide it!" Utterly ridiculous, often impractical and impossible to ensure, shouldn't reach this point in the first place!

"If they provide emergency contraception they risk ending 'a life', and that is against their beliefs. Which they are entitled to." No! It's absolutely none of their business! It's the customers/patients CHOICE to obtain, and to take that medication, they are NOT entitled to enforce THEIR beliefs on someone else! Do these pharmacists you work with dispense medications for other conditions that have abortifacient side effects? Do they dispense viagra? Do they quiz the men prescribed it on their sex lives? Do they sell condoms? Do they question those buyers? I strongly suspect they do - which would ALSO strictly speaking be against their religion so they're not devout they're hypocrites and misogynists!

"but I do not believe in excluding highly qualified, empathetic and caring pharmacists from a profession" if they were really empathetic and caring they wouldn't be judgmental hypocrites and misogynists causing difficulty and distress to girls and women in an emergency situation! They do not belong in the job!

"Also as pharmacists we are not legally allowed to sell it to anyone who is not actually taking the EHC, be it a man or another woman. The woman who wants the EHC has to present so we can ask all the relevant medical questions and get consent. And from a duty of care point of view make sure there isn't cases of abuse, rape etc." This is excuses and more misogynist bollocks! There are far more dangerous meds sold without any pharmacist involvement at all! Far less a set of intrusive questions mainly designed to shame women for daring to enjoy sex let alone having either a contraception failure or being human and getting carried away (which by the way the man involved is just as responsible for) they're certainly not anywhere near adequately trained or qualified in dealing with abuse, rape etc either. Particularly when you consider that the very devout followers who are the type to be anti abortion also tend to be the same types as think divorce is only acceptable when there's fairly extreme abuse.

"but it's not dictating a woman's health. From their point of view it's playing with fate and "a life""
their point of view is irrelevant it's the patients/customers point of view that matters, and it IS dictating a woman's health, abortion (and yet no irony re this!) or pregnancy and childbirth (both likely results of a girl or woman being prevented from accessing emergency contraception) carry greater risks to the patients health than emergency contraception! And that's without the potential consequences if the patient is likely to be abused as a result of becoming pregnant - but hey "loose" girls and women don't matter eh?

"They would call the nearest pharmacy and make sure they got them seen or even refer them to a local surgery as a lot of pharmacy's are near surgeries where there are a lot of Drs or nurses who could provide this service." I'm guessing from this statement you're in an urban or at least suburban area? I live rurally, I'm fairly close to the nearest town but in my area there are villages with only 1 pharmacy, there are some villages with none and the next nearest is 8m+ away and not easily accessible unless you drive. Where does that attitude leave the teenager who's being abused at home and doesn't want to deal with the resulting pregnancy but can't get away from her village to access emergency contraception? Where does that leave the battered wife who's been raped by her husband? Where does that leave the skint single mum who's had a ons and the condom split?

And yes - what about the risk of pregnancy to the woman's life? I have 1 dd, I had 2 mc before her and then her pregnancy was medically a catalogue of disasters! Ending in a hugely risky birth during which we both almost died, her due to a long labour and a rare protein issue, me due to blood loss and a very rare pregnancy heart complication which cannot be dx until that first birth but which recurs in pregnancy - in subsequent pregnancies it flares in the first trimester and can cause heart failure. Pregnancy could literally kill me! I have been very careful with contraception because of this (ironically the condition also makes GA high risk so precludes sterilisation also) I took the combined pill carefully and I also use condoms but I've had 2 occasions (in 18 years) where due to antibiotics on one occasion and a stomach flu on another I knew the combined pill was nixed and condoms split on us and I accessed emergency contraception. On each occasion the questions were Fucking ridiculous, the attitude of the pharmacists condescending and judgmental - completely unnecessary!

Great posts @Graphista agree entirely.

abortifacient great word too!

All the ‘what about’ posts on rape/rural pharmacies/shy teens/no transport etc are all very valid points as to why it is vital that adequate provision of emergency contraception is something that is taken very seriously and absolutely IS something worth campaigning about - BUT in my opinion it is NOT the responsibility of the individual pharmacists (or even the private pharmacy businesses) to ensure that provision - I feel we should be directing our ire at the NHS/healthcare authorities, who have abdicated this provision to the private pharmacies and therefore HAVE to respect the rights of the pharmacists.

I feel this is absolutely an “equality isn’t pie, it’s not going to run out” issue, and the rights of both women to access emergency contraception AND individuals to exercise their freedom of belief can both be respected by a thinking-outside-the-box approach like I wrote in my earlier posts.

But medicine isnt the time for personal beliefs . Or we would still be burying potatoes or dancing naked with sticks or whatever. It's a time for facts. Science.

According to the NHS website the MAP works by delating ovulation.its no more an abortion than wanking in a tissue and no man has been refused Kleenex.

And if it's about legal rights then why is it when faced with a conflict of legal rights or protected characteristics, every time it will be the one that affects its women that has to "stand down" every time.

This proving it's all about misogyniy as opposed to anything else.

How about medicines that are unsafe in pregnancy and have the potential to cause manage to a foetus?

I don’t think anyone supporting freedom of belief (a generally recognised key human right btw) is saying women’s rights must take second place when there’s an apparent conflict (btw female pharmacists will decline to prescribe as well); neither right trumps the other and the answer is to find a way to accommodate both, I posted some off the cuff ideas earlier.bI believe the responsibility to ensure adequate provision lies with the NHS/local health authorities though, not private businesses or individuals.

If neither rights trump either why are women refused contraception?

Why would it be a legal right to do that?

And why are drs refusing.

It can take days or weeks to get an appointment and drs are fully booked by 803. Theres no waiting around for another staff member they are probably all in consultations.

In those cases women are outright refused and unable to access their legal rights.

Feels like you’re not reading my posts, who said it was a legal right to refuse women contraception full stop. Of course it’s not, but it IS a legal right for private individuals/businesses to exercise their right to freedom of belief.

I feel the responsibility to ensure women can access emergency contraception lies with the NHS/local health authority. If abdicating the provision to private individuals/businesses is not adequate - because those private individuals/business have a right to freedom of belief - then the NHS/LHA needs to address that, that is where campaigns or complaints should be directed.

But peope still have their right to a belief. No one is making them do anything to themselves or compromise their beliefs.

And it's not consistent is it. Medications that lower sperm count or affect fertility or contain animal products or to aid sex with people who arent married, they are not refused. No one is sold a pack of condoms on the condition they only sleep with a woman.

It's just women.

So the belief must either be women deserve to be punished for having sex. Or that they have no rights to controlling anything with their own bodies

That is not a belief that should be supported in an industry where upholdong bodily autonomy is vital

And it's all very well saying the responsibility lies with the NHS etc

However no one is feasibly foing to keep a member of staff available at all times to prescribe 2 items. That would mean hiring two people to every one they hire with a religious belief.

No one is going to hire double the staff to cater for this.

Rotaring wont work either it takes one day off or an episode of sickness or having to swap shifts around to accommodate an appointment etc and you are straight back to square one

So when people are hired the hospital or the dr or the pharmacy etc are actively choosing to trump one protected characteristic over another. And those who are affected most are women.

Can a health authority control how many non-prescribing pharmacies are in an area and how they are distributed? Can anyone ask these questions at interview? Could a non-prescribing pharmacist be refused a job because there are already a lot of non-prescribing pharmacists in that area? Is anyone keeping a database of this?

I don't see how you could manage this at all.