spiralsheep said:

There's another potential approach to this in addition to lobbying the pharmacists to change their policies. One of the most prized and lucrative jobs in the pharmacy industry is being licenced as an NHS dispensing pharmacy. Why doesn't the NHS create a requirement that all pharmacists in licensed NHS dispencing pharmacies to agree to dispence any NHS prescribed medication on demand? Possibly extending that requirement, to relieve the "burden" on the NHS ;-) , to also dispensing all those same medications, when they don't require a prescription? I think the government should act on this issue and, in fact, should have done so years ago when it first arose.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 12:10 PM

Shea said:

@ spiralsheep - very interesting perspective.

I don't agree with any health professional "using" conscience as an excuse not to do their job. Whether thats pharmacists and the morning after pill, or doctors and abortion. You shouldn't be allowed to enter a profession if you are not prepared to fufil all aspects of the job.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 12:49 PM

Troika21 said:

Previously, I defended the right of some christian B&B owners to refuse a gay couple admission into their business.

And I did so on what I belive are the rights of christians to stick by their convictions. However, it is this point where that line of defence stops.

The provision of medical services is a vital part of society, and no-one get to use that to push their beliefs onto others. This is the point where the 'conscience clause' breaks down, rather than becomes useful.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 12:52 PM

Trying to remain calm said:

Oh this really annoys me. If you are morally against doing an important part of a certain job, you should not do that job.

I feel this way about doctors who refuse to refer women (who probably aren't having the best time or feeling at their most happy and confident at this point in their lives even before meeting an unsupportive doctor) for an abortion. If you want to be a doctor but are not prepared to support women in this important part of your job, be a bone surgeon or something - you should not be able to become a GP and just refuse to do the parts of your job that you don't like.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 3:20 PM

BareNakedLady said:

@Troika21: The provision of medical services is a vital part of society, and no-one get to use that to push their beliefs onto others.

I really can't see how the two cases are different. Are you saying that it's okay to discriminate if you're just in charge of people's holidays, but not if you do something more important? Where's the line... if the two men had been doctors staying at the B&B on business, would it be okay for the homophobic B&B owners to discriminate? Or if I wanted to take the morning after pill while staying at their B&B, would it be okay for them to kick me out or would that fall under medical grounds?

Using your own beliefs as an excuse to actively discriminate against someone else's perfectly legal action is wrong. End of. And if you work in an area where you are required to do something you personally disagree with, either grit your teeth and get on with it, or change jobs.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 3:51 PM

Claire said:

I see parallels with the registrar in Islington two years ago who lost her job because for religious reasons she refused to conduct civil ceremonies between same sex couples. Pharmacists who won't perform their whole job can move over and let those who are unemployed and willing to do the whole job do the whole job.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 4:46 PM

Rachel said:

Hmmm, I'm actually slightly torn to be honest. If the pharmacists were employed directly by the NHS then I would consider it absolutely unacceptable for them to refuse to provide any kind of contraception. The problem is that they are private businesses, so there isn't really any 'right' for you to be able to buy something in their shop, as far as I can see. I'm not sure exactly how their contracts with the NHS to provide services work though, so its not a totally informed opinion.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 5:47 PM

angercanbepower said:

Rachel: if the state is going to control access to drugs through prescription, rather than directly dispensing them, it's the responsibility of the state to ensure that they are accessible. Sure, if one pharmacy refuses to hand them over you can go to any other. But how many does it take to refuse before it is reasonable for a citizen to say that the state has not discharged its reponsibility?

Of course this is exactly the type of question that the Department of Health loves answering - it wouldn't surprise me if there were some sort of national performance indicator linked to the number of pharmacies within a defined local area with guidelines about action to be taken in the case of non-availability of medication, probably index-linked to an arbitrarily calculated by dividing the "social value" of receiving the medication by the the cost of obtaining it.

But (my irritation with the DoH aside) that's not a road we need to go down here - people face enough obstacles between ill health and recovery without needing the judgment of a pharmacist in there too.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 7:09 PM

Jeff said:

That's gotta be illegal. Whether or not the doctors/pharmacists agree with the morals of the drugs being requested is irrelevent. If the pills are legal (whether they should be or not) then they surely have a legal obligation to dispense them?

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 9:35 PM

Mephit said:

And actually it's not as simple as being able to go to another pharmacy or pharmacist if you're refused at one: that assumes that there is another you can get to.

In rural areas there doesn't tend to be much choice. The two outlets nearest to me are run by the same pharmacists, for example, so if they turned awkward it could be a major problem, especially for non-drivers. And even in urban areas, having to go further afield is likely to cause difficulties, particularly for more vulnerable groups.

Posted on 25 March 2010 at 10:09 PM

Melaszka said:

The one and only time I have used the morning-after pill, the pharmacist I went to told me I couldn't get it there (I don't think he clearly explained it was on conscientious grounds - being naive and never in this situation before, I just thought that normal pharmacies didn't stock it) and then, despite the fact that there were half a dozen other pharmacies within a mile's radius of his shop, directed me to an abortion clinic several miles away (presumably in a deliberate attempt to "educate" me that the morning-after pill is "really" abortion).

Oh, and he also spoke to me with utter contempt in his voice and face, although he didn't actually say anything rude, so I couldn't make a complaint.

I dearly hope that other people he "served" were less clueless than me and complained about him and he's since been struck off (or was what he did legal?).

Despite this, I would still feel sorry for pharmacists with religious convictions against the morning-after pill if they had to provide it, especially those already working in the profession, who may have spent many years and a lot of money training for their jobs at a time when they were assured they could avoid this aspect.

But I can see that, even if the pharmacist is polite and professional (as mine wasn't), being told "I won't serve you, as it's against my conscience" can feel like a slap in the face and a form of moral pressure, particularly as you're normally already feeling frightened and upset to be asking for it in the first place! If they just pretended they'd run out, I wouldn't mind.

Posted on 26 March 2010 at 12:55 AM

Kate said:

This article in CIF has sparked something for me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/26/pharmacists-
religious-belief

The conscious clause could be invoked theoretically by a Scientologist
objecting to prozac, or a vegetarian objecting to gelatine based pills.
But I doubt there would be any sympathy for these positions and more
importantly I doubt that the powers that be would have felt it
necessary to include a conscious clause if these were the pressing
issues facing pharmacists.

My feeling is that that this is less about protecting individuals'
religious beliefs and more that the Council/society etc are all too
ready to believe that women's contraception etc is not a medical
essential but something "problematic", something with "moral
implications". It's an embarrassment that sill lingers decades after
we accepted that women have a right to recreational sex and bodily
autonomy. As a society we are ready to marginalise Jehovah's Witness
for their views on blood donation but at heart too many people are
ready to accept religious "beliefs" that restrict women's freedom.

Posted on 26 March 2010 at 11:09 AM

Charlotte said:

Aaaargh. This is ridiculous. I had no idea there was conscious clause in the UK. Grr.

Posted on 26 March 2010 at 8:15 PM