Local Pharmacist refuses supply of "Morning After Pill on "Religious Grounds"

[munky]

Now flip that scenario completely on it's head. Mr barman dishes out pints and spirits all day long and lets just say he has a religion that somehow means he won't serve a particular spirit to certain people, the pub would be turned over . .

[VARB]

I'm sure she could have gone elsewhere , people always go on about their rights what about the rights of the pharmacist not to compromise his or her religious beliefs ? This was not a life threatening situation for the woman complaining I'm sure she could have made other arrangments.

[LordChaverly]

This is a hard one but I would have to come down on the side of the Pharnacist even if I don't like it.

 

Of course, there are conscience clauses in relation to medical practice. We could hardly expect devout Catholics to be made to perform abortions, for example.

 

However, I think this story might be viewed as part of a bigger picture. Hardly a day goes by (correction - a day never goes by) without an episode of a muslim refusing to do this or that, or making demands of one kind or another in the name of religion. Now it could be that these episodes are only new in the sense of the media attention they are now getting. Or it could be that they are manifestations of an increasing restive and truculent mood on the part of a particular community (or certain sections of it) which is increasingly emboldened by its growing numerical strength, by the multiculturalist doctrines which legitimise its demands, and also by the weakness and pusillanimity of our politicians and bureaucrats (who have a tendency to cave in to such demands in order to avoid being accused of 'Islamophobia' or 'racism', or simply to avoid aggro and to have a quiet life).

[shoeshine]

There is no place for religion or "conscience" when it comes to operating a vital arm of the National Health Service, where the individual or a Company makes a living from the taxpayer.

 

The get-out clause in the Contract is ridiculous and should be removed forthwith.

 

As for the claim regarding "a nearby pharmacy" to the one in question, I think the nearest is 4 miles away......owned by the same Group,

 

I could write chapter and verse about this Group, and the poor service I complained about to their Head Office, but I won't do so on this Forum.

[Bartfarst]

Of course, there are conscience clauses in relation to medical practice. We could hardly expect devout Catholics to be made to perform abortions, for example.

 

However, I think this story might be viewed as part of a bigger picture. Hardly a day goes by (correction - a day never goes by) without an episode of a muslim refusing to do this or that, or making demands of one kind or another in the name of religion. Now it could be that these episodes are only new in the sense of the media attention they are now getting. Or it could be that they are manifestations of an increasing restive and truculent mood on the part of a particular community (or certain sections of it) which is increasingly emboldened by its growing numerical strength, by the multiculturalist doctrines which legitimise its demands, and also by the weakness and pusillanimity of our politicians and bureaucrats (who have a tendency to cave in to such demands in order to avoid being accused of 'Islamophobia' or 'racism', or simply to avoid aggro and to have a quiet life).

Nicely summed up by LC.

 

I, surprisingly enough, view this a little more sternly.

 

Abortion is legal in this country, as is the morning after pill. What if, acting legally under UK law, a girl goes to the chemist for the morning-after pill. A good girl - morally upstanding who may have just been taken advantage of with the help of something slipped into her drink. And suppose she’s concerned that her family won’t understand, or perhaps it’s even the result of abuse within her family.

 

What if she has one chance to nip out under the pretext of fetching a paper and to slip into a chemist, and that one chemist decides that HIS religion, which he brought into OUR country, is more important than British law. Based on his medieval culture and beliefs, that girl’s life, and her family’s, could be ruined.

 

All pharmacists have a good deal of responsibility and must make decisions not dissimilar to those made by GPs wen they dispense some medicines. Should this pharmacist be allowed to choose how and what he dispenses on the grounds of the teachings of a medieval religion based in Mecca?

 

He should be struck off, and deported.

[Jabberwocky]

My other half informs me that in Leicester where there is a high proportion of Muslim pharmacists, its pretty common to have the morning after pill refused on these grounds. Its common place and often women have to travel for miles for it.

The odd thing is, the docs who actually make out the prescription for the pill are also muslim.

[evildrneil]

Now flip that scenario completely on it's head. Mr barman dishes out pints and spirits all day long and lets just say he has a religion that somehow means he won't serve a particular spirit to certain people, the pub would be turned over . .

 

That wasn't the case here - he wasn't refusing to serve a particular person but refusing to serve a particular item.

[VARB]

The pharmacist is in this case not just dispensing a prescription wrote out by a doctor , the goverment have introduced a system that certain drugs can now be dispensed directly by the pharmacist the so called morning after pill being one of them . This is when the moral and religious part comes in , he or she is not just following instructions from the doctor but making a conscious decision if the woman should be allowed this tablet ( there are medical as well as moral reasons to refuse )

[saxon51]

Refusing to issue her with the pill on the grounds of his moral/religious beliefs, but directing her to another place where she can get it seems a little inconsistant to me.

 

If a young kid asks me to get him 20 fags from the shop as I enter it, but I refuse because I think it morally wrong, how hypocritical would it be of me to direct him to someone else who would get them for him.

 

If this pharmacist isn't willing to provide the service 100%, then he shouldn't be doing the job.

 

How many Jehova's Witnesses are there working in the Blood Transfusion Service ..... but refusing to handle any task involving donated blood?

 

How many Jews are there working at Sandor Berre's pork butchers, but refusing to handle the pork products?

 

Imagine how far a Greenpeace member would get if working for Harvey Nichols coat department, but refused to sell the fur coats.

 

And whose stupid idea was it to employ someone who picks and chooses which parts of the job they are prepared to do. Surely, if there are aspects of a job you don't like doing, or your religion bars you from doing, then you don't take the job.

[Mathom]

This shouldn't have been allowed to happen. It doesn't matter if the woman concerned could go to another pharmacy or not, its the principle of a woman's right to this drug that is the key point.

 

The morning after pill does not 'kill babies' or some other emotional claptrap, it is simply a high dose of contraceptive to set her mind at rest after a mistake or accident. It has been made freely available to prevent abortions or unwanted children further down the line, and to provide a discreet and safe option for sensible women who know an error has been made. If this had been a nervous teenage girl or someone without transport then there would potentially have been big consequences.

 

If pharmacists are to be allowed to refuse women such drugs for non-health reasons then someone else must be on duty at the same time who does not have such objections. In this case someone's personal religious beliefs have been allowed to take precedent over someone's health needs, which cannot be right. It doesn't matter about his religion, he could equally have been a Catholic, what does matter is that the hard fought for free access to this drug has been prevented.