A ‘conscience clause’ to legitimise discrimination
By Helen G | 25 March 2010, 15:55
Further to Laura’s earlier post about how the General Pharmaceutical Council’s so-called ‘conscience clause’ will allow dispensing pharmacists to “refuse to prescribe items that might clash with their personal religious beliefs”, I’d like to add my own concerns about the matter.
Although the BBC’s story specifically refers to “items such as the morning-after pill and contraception”, when I think about the recent attempt by the religious Right to perpetuate gender identity discrimination in Europe, it doesn’t take a huge leap of the imagination to see how the ‘conscience clause’ could be invoked as a way of, for example, refusing to fill hormone prescriptions for trans people.
For those who are discriminated against in this way, and who are fortunate enough to be able to afford it, there’s always the option to buy essential meds from online sources. However, self-medicating has its own risks and may also result in people simply disappearing from the healthcare system; not receiving regular checkups; blood, hormone and other monitoring tests, etc, and running the risk of becoming seriously unwell. I’d like to know on whose conscience would be the death of even one trans person as a result of the application of this clause as a mask for their own prejudices.
Anecdotally, I’m well aware of the anger of many trans people towards a system that already seems to favour gatekeeping over facilitation, and I can only hope that this iniquitous ‘conscience clause’ does not become common currency as a way of upholding the personal prejudices of those pharmacists who may hold transphobic views, without actually being required to come to terms with their bigotry.
As Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, says:
“It seems incredible that pharmacists can arbitrarily tell people that they won’t serve them with medication that has been prescribed by a doctor.”
——————
(Estradiol molecule image via Wikipedia)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
- Latest Posts
- Coalition will not endorse EU directive against trafficking
- New review - Awra Amba
- Forced divorce and sterilisation: a reality for many transgender persons
- Weekly Round-Up And Open Thread # 5
- New feature: On campus, feminism wavers
- New research into domestic abuse against trans people
- The female lead?
- Women's Rugby World Cup under way
- Guest post: Some feminists are more equal than others
- 26 August: SAWCC Book launch at The Women's Library
- More posts
- Latest Comments
- coldharbour on Coalition will not endorse EU directive against trafficking
- M. Varn Chandola on Update on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani
- Amy Clare on It's A Level results day!
- sianushka on Coalition will not endorse EU directive against trafficking
- Jennifer Drew on Coalition will not endorse EU directive against trafficking
- Elmo on It's A Level results day!
- Horry on "Advancing Women" by... Not Employing Us
- coldharbour on Weekly Round-Up And Open Thread # 5
- Jessie on Pakistan flood relief
- Laura on Guest post: Some feminists are more equal than others
- Reclaiming The F-Word
Founder of The F-Word, Catherine Redfern, has co-authored a new book with Kristin Aune. Find out more at the Reclaiming The F-Word website.
- More feminist bloggers
- There are plenty of fantastic UK feminist bloggers around. For a fantastic introduction to feminist blogging, go to the Carnival of Feminists website, which showcases the finest feminist posts from around the blogsphere, including many from UK blogs.
- How to contribute to The F-Word
- Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info
- Events
- Check out our events listings for info on some of the fantastic feminist events going on up and down the country. Please get in touch to tell us about events we've not listed yet.
- Small Print
- All blog posts are the views of the individual post author, and not those of The F-Word.
Feeds
Clare said:
I can't see how they are able to defend this loophole - the Police and CPS hve to uphold the law even if they don't agree with it; teachers must teach the curriculum even if they don't believe what it says; I have to work within my organisation's policies & procedures even where I think they should change - why on earth should a pharmacist be given free reign to deny people the treatment they need??? FFS.
Posted on 25 March 2010 at 4:22 PM
gadgetgal said:
Spot on - I'm not in favour of most opt out clauses, and this country seems to just LOVE them (check out how many opt outs we've had over the years in the EU, and that's just politics!). It's a worrying trend - I can understand wanting to give people the ability to protect themselves and their beliefs, but not to the detriment of society as a whole. The reason why the laws are changing is because they've been found to be wrong and unfair, so we need to change what we're currently doing - I don't see how giving everyone opt out clauses is going to help change things further. If everyone now decides to opt out then nothing's actually changed, has it? So what was the point in changing the laws in the first place?
Posted on 25 March 2010 at 4:37 PM
zohra said:
Thought this bit was ace Helen:
I’m well aware of the anger of many trans people towards a system that already seems to favour gatekeeping over facilitation, and I can only hope that this iniquitous ‘conscience clause’ does not become common currency as a way of upholding the personal prejudices of those pharmacists who may hold transphobic views, without actually being required to come to terms with their bigotry.
Posted on 26 March 2010 at 10:06 AM
Butterflywings said:
yeah, surprise surprise you bring this round to trannies issues as you do everything. IT'S ABOUT WOMEN idiot not men in drag and er if as you insist you ARE a woman, WEALLY cos you totes feew like one, then you will not have a problem as you'll pass, huh? Not to mention that not everyone is actually out to get trans people, except in your self-obsessed imagination.
Posted on 28 March 2010 at 9:13 PM
Helen G said:
Hello again Butterflywings
I'm posting your comment because I feel it's important that hate speech like this is held up to the light for all to see.
However, please note that this is the last comment from you that I shall ever publish, no matter what pseudonyms or fake email addresses you dream up.
Thanks for stopping by.
Helen
Posted on March 28, 2010 9:42 PM
gadgetgal said:
Hi Helen - your handling of hate mail with total grace is superb, and though it's distasteful to read it you're right to highlight it here. Just shows the problem people we have around already, and who we could be giving more power to if "conscience clauses" are put into all further equal rights legislation.
And I gotta add: I've never seen a more inappropriate pseudonym used EVER, light and delicate like butterfly wings that person ain't!!
Posted on 28 March 2010 at 10:42 PM
sianmarie said:
helen - well said and done on highlighting the hate speech, once again makes me grateful that we have moderated comments on this site. it is so sad that people feel this way but hopefully such attitudes are being reduced by the highlighting and criticising of them.
in terms of conscience clauses - they're just so shocking! unbelievable that this is allowed, everyone has the right to access medical care without encountering prejudice and hate.
Posted on 29 March 2010 at 12:25 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
I'd just like to second gadgetgal's support for Helen. Butterflywing's nasty, transphobic comment is just one of many that have been left on the blog, and while we like to protect readers from such hatred, I think it's important to show that these views exist within the feminist community and voice our opposition to them.
Posted on March 29, 2010 12:29 PM