following on the from the abortion thread.. another controversial topic

Hmmm, yes, I've had a similar experience, except he didn't have the gumption to say why he wouldn't give it to me, just humiliated me and then told me to see my GP. I called him a fucking cunt andtook my business elsewhere ?

So they waited till the very last minute (even though it's only about 50% effective at 72 hours) and then couldn't get elsewhere because everywhere was closed? Sorry, but I've got minimum sympathy with them on that count - if they knew it failed couldn't they go anytime on Saturday or earlier on Sunday?

I assume pharmacists do have the right to refuse to sell it?

That is disgusting. He is in the wrong job if his religion is going to give him the power to make decisions like that for other people

x

Hang on, their contraception failed on Friday night. The MAP needs to be taken within 72 hours. Isn't that Monday night? Why the mass panic on Sunday night - they had all day Monday to do something about it. Not to mention that they had all day Saturday and most of Sunday to sort it out. Am I missing something?

I'd agree with you in that respect but it never occurred to me you'd be refused on religious grounds. I wonder how many other items he won't dispense due to his beliefs.... Iike puddled says, he's possibly in the wrong job.

I think the point of the story isn't when they went to the pharmacist, it is the fact he wouldnt sell it based on his religion. If they leave it so late it is only 50% effective then that's their fault but they should have the option to be able to buy it

x

I've had a similar experience, not that they wouldn't give me it - just that the guy really tried to humiliate me. The pharmacist annouced my prescription loudly so everyone turned round (my name, address and then that I was getting the morning after pill), then gave me a little speech on being responsible before he would give me it (infront of everyone). I told him that going to the docs rather than crossing my fingers and hoping for the best was being reponsible. He called me Ms Doo.Little just as I was about to leave, I retorted with 'that'll be Dr Doo.Little to you' before stalking out ?. I've never been back there for anything since but my cheeks were burning as I walked out, the git.

But if a doctor can refuse to refer someone for an abortion on religious grounds, surely a pharmacist can do likewise for the MAP? He did suggest somewhere else they could go, wasn't his fault it was 15 minutes before closing time. I totally agree that Sophie's experience is disgraceful but there is no suggestion that this pharmacist behaved in that way.

Something about the bloke saying 'It's my right' has got my back up as well.

Horrid. When I asked for it they said: "Why do you want it?" So I had to say "Because I had unprotected sex" in front of half of bloody Clapham [V]

How ridiculous to ask why you want it - is there any other reason to take it?

thats irrelevant. t he relevant bit is he refused. and like abortion on the other thread, i think its unprofessional, and pharmacists/gps should be made to give it assuming their reticence is solely based on religious/moral reasons. its bloody ridiculous that someone in the healthcare profession can refuse on the basis of their religion, utterly ridiculous.

I dont see how it is the same thing. A doctor would have to perform a procedure they do not agree with. There is also much more time available to find another doctor and arrange this

The pharmacist is selling something over the counter and doesnt have to 'get involved' as such.

x

I know - hence my hurling abuse at him ?

Equally though, we don't know why the customers had left it so late and that may well be irrelevent. If a consumer is led to believe that a shop sells a product during a set opening period and they visit that shop during that opening period, I would consider it a reasonable expectation that the consumer can buy the product. The couple may well have left it very late to try to buy, but they did arrive in a shop that could supply that product whilst the store was open.

Again, like the TOP debate, isn't this about openness? Perhaps at the very least there should be a sign up stating that the pharmacist is unable to help with emergency contraception and listing other options. I would prefer to see the store make sure there was a viable alternative option to make sure that no-one was turned away.

I agree with you that a sign on the door would be helpful and would stop people being embarrassed as some have spoken about here.

I have a feeling though that any shop can refuse to sell you any item if they wish. I don't know if pharmacists are also covered by this?

TBH I think the time they went IS irrelevant so I'm not sure why it's mentioned in the story - in the sense that it's not the pharmacist's fault that they couldn't get to another place in time.

As far as I am concerned it's irelevant whether the couple were too late to take it or not. As a pharmacist he's there to serve the community not impose his religious beliefs on his customers. According to the rest of the article he's within his rights to refuse which I wasn't aware of. What's the point of supplying these sorts of "treatments" if you are denied access to it because of someone elses religious views. OK that last comment is a bit extreme since there are probably other chemists in your local area but the point remains the same.

I feel really uncomfortable that I could be refused a product because of someone else's religious beliefs. I do realise the pharmacist has a right not to sell the product and only has to provide details of where else it can be obtained but I worry about the potential implications of this. For example, what if the customer was a young girl with no transport to go to the alternative location, or who had used up all her courage to ask for the pill in the first place.

I looked on the FPA website and it only says the emergency contraception pill is available at most pharmacists, not all. Perhaps that covers it. However, it goes on to say the pharmacist will be able to provide confdential advice. There is nothing on there to suggest that it may be denied on religious grounds.

This is the bit that worries me. If the pharmacist won't supply the MAP because of his religion, what's to say his advice won't be also governed by his religion? How can his religion allow him to provide unbiased advice if it won't let him supply the MAP???

I find it truly shocking that someone can refuse to give you on the grounds of their religion. Can a Catholic refuse to sell condoms on religious grounds? Where does this stop? Why would you go into a profession where you don't agree with some of the things you should be advising people on? How can you give an unbiased opinion?

The timing of the couple getting the MAP is irrelevant. We don't know their situation. It's just unfortunate they got their 15mins before closing time.

I did some googling and I found this which I find equally as disturbing. I think there needs to be some clarification on this area. I'm not suggesting taking away someone's religious rights but I do feel as a consumer / patient there should be some guidelines on how your doctor's / pharmacist's religious views might impact your own choice and then what to do about it. I am guessing that the vast majority of customers / patients coming across this are doing so for the first time and so are having to deal with feelings of anger, frustration, helplessness, embarrassment, etc as well as having to deal with their immediatel problem.

I also feel that if, in general, a pharmacy offers the MAP as a product, this should be available in that shop at all times during opening hours, even if the duty pharmacist can't personally dispense it. There needs to be a viable alternative, not asking someone to travel to a different shop to obtain it. I feel it would be different if the pharmacy in general decided not to offer this as a service though I feel this should then be prominently displayed and alternative given. My fear is that if the pharmacy itself offers the product but individual pharmacists won't dispence it, it becomes a lottery. I don't like the idea of something as important as contraception becoming a lottery.

Something occurred to me, my aunt is a registrar of Births, deaths and marriages, and also, now, civil partnerships.

someone who was an asssitant registrar within her district was a vicar's widow. Doing Civil partnerships was against her religious beliefs, and she had to take early retirement because she said she wouldn't do them.

How is that different from being a doc or pharmacist?

If you were in a civil partnership, would you want someone who was marrying you against their wishes? I think it would put a bit of a downer on the whole ceremony. But, being a registrar is not like playing God, and deciding if they should dispense something that could ultimately change your life. I'm wording it wrong, but I think you get the jist?

For me it isn't. If your religious beliefs get in the way of you doing your day job then I guess it's time to find another career. I don't bring my personal problems to work so I don't expect people to bring their religious beliefs to work either. What you believe or practise on your own time is up to you but if it's preventing you from doing your job or providing the service you are paid to give then I think you need to do something else.

If people are interested in access to the morning after pill they might want to have a look here

Interesting website, although I did notice this on the FPA website which seemed to address at least one of its concerns:

Yes, if you are worried about your contraceptive method failing, you are going on holiday, or you cannot get emergency contraception easily. Ask your doctor or nurse about this.

Obviously I've not tried to get the pills in advance so don't know how easy or otherwise it is.

I'd be interested to know what rights, if any, women do have to be ably to buy emergency contraception. If these rights do not exist at the moment, I think they should do so the situation is clarified and understood. As I see it, the only way to offset the impact of one group of people having rights on another group is to ensure the other group's rights are also not impacted (if that makes sense). If it turns out, as is probably the case, that women have no defined rights to buy contraception, then the whole thing becomes a lottery. This concerns me. If however women did have rights, then the pharmacy would have to ensure that there was a way to buy them even though the pharmacist himself might not dispense them. Much better than the woman being turned away.

The MAP's main purpose is to end the life of a little bundle of human cells. The pharmacist believes that the bundle of cells is a distinct new person and that to destroy it would be tantamount to killing a human being. Of course he is not going to participate in doing that. Without the right to conscientious objection on this, he would have to leave the profession, and in fact so would all other pharmacists who believe that a new life begins at conception. Surely you should be able to be a pharmacist and pro-life? Otherwise, we would have a situation where people were coerced into doing what they believe is killing, for fear of losing their livelihood. That strikes me as quite sinister.

no, i totally disagree. how can you possibly refuse a drug to a person which is legal, on the open market, and suitable for them? no. if they have a problem with it, leave the profession.

I agree with NickJ. Either that or ensure that there is always an alternative way of getting the pill without leaving the premises, thus suiting both parties.

I don't agree with the pharmacist's position but it's no different to the GPs at my practice who specifically state that they will not take on abortion cases, yet they seem to escape similar press coverage. I'm in two minds over this one really. I wouldn't want to exclude perfectly competent and good people from entering either profession but equally I think we have the right to expect treatment within the bounds of the law, especially when its a publicly funded service. I think I'd probably tend towards the latter.

they should either leave or only be eligible to take up employment in a practise where there is an alternate dispenser

i feel the same about doctors

it is a joke that it is so difficult to get the MAP without that sort of nonsense

They can refuse it because they believe they would be helping to kill another human being, and the law acknowledges their right to refuse to do it. Do you think that the law should be changed so that all pharmacists are obliged to sell the MAP even if to do so would in their eyes be killing someone?

I wonder on that basis if they refuse to dispense Contraceptive pills &/or to girls younger than legal marriage age?