Mum refused morning after pill

#1
A MUSLIM pharmacist told a couple he couldn't give them emergency contraception because it was against his religious beliefs.

Chris Mellett and Kaye Walsh went to a Sainburys chemist to buy the morning-after pill but were told they couldn't have it - because the pharmacist didn't agree with it.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ingafter_pill_its_against_my_religion?rss=yes

what's religious belief have to do with it? and why choose a job that will conflict with those beliefs then? lost me :? :? :?
 
#2
Good thing he didn't work on the delicatessen counter.
 
#3
Mate, I think most of us are getting sick to death of all these capitalised "A MUSLIM Pharmacist....." "A MUSLIM Bloke....." "A MUSLIM Cat......"

For Christ's sake, this is a complete non-story. As the article says, which, if you had bothered to read it you would have realised,


article said:
A spokeswoman for Sainsburys said all its pharmacists were governed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

The society's ethics code says if the morning-after pill is against a pharmacist's personal, religious or moral beliefs they are within their rights not to supply it.

The spokesman said: "We would ask our pharmacists to do their best to help, to find another colleague to dispense the pill or to direct them to another pharmacy nearby."

If this had been a Catholic person, or a Hindu, or a scientologist, you wouldn't haven't posted it. And if I recall, most Catholic doctrine is against any form of contraception, and so a devout Catholic would be just as likely, or even more so, to offer the same response.

So basically, this "story" is "Man follows company guidelines, woman is slightly inconvienced." Not exactly front page stuff.
 
#4
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
Mate, I think most of us are getting sick to death of all these capitalised "A MUSLIM Pharmacist....." "A MUSLIM Bloke....." "A MUSLIM Cat......"

For Christ's sake, this is a complete non-story. As the article says, which, if you had bothered to read it you would have realised,


article said:
A spokeswoman for Sainsburys said all its pharmacists were governed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

The society's ethics code says if the morning-after pill is against a pharmacist's personal, religious or moral beliefs they are within their rights not to supply it.

The spokesman said: "We would ask our pharmacists to do their best to help, to find another colleague to dispense the pill or to direct them to another pharmacy nearby."
If this had been a Catholic person, or a Hindu, or a scientologist, you wouldn't haven't posted it. And if I recall, most Catholic doctrine is against any form of contraception, and so a devout Catholic would be just as likely, or even more so, to offer the same response.

So basically, this "story" is "Man follows company guidelines, woman is slightly inconvienced." Not exactly front page stuff.
I disagree - if it is a Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, whomever - and they cannot fulfill or will not fulfill a part of their job - filling scripts - they should not be doing that job. Unless there is someone else there available to do so. Since I could not get to the story, could not tell it that was the case.
 
#5
My ex-GF's mum is a devout Irish Catholic GP, who won't prescribe the morning after pill to her patients, sending them onto a (Hindu) colleague instead.

Ironically, my ex gobbled them down like Smarties.
 
#6
redgrain said:
I disagree - if it is a Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, whomever - and they cannot fulfill or will not fulfill a part of their job - filling scripts - they should not be doing that job. Unless there is someone else there available to do so. Since I could not get to the story, could not tell it that was the case.

Gonna have to diasgree with you on that one mate. I think that although I might not agree with his views, however medieval they may be, if he doesn't want to hand out the pill, which is still a controversial issue for some people, then he should not be obliged to.

The spokesman said: "We would ask our pharmacists to do their best to help, to find another colleague to dispense the pill or to direct them to another pharmacy nearby."
As long as they follow those rules, preferably in the order in which they're listed, no dramas as I see it. Anyway, leaving it to the last minute, that's just bad admin. People have to take responsibility for their actions, can't go blaming unwanted pregnancies on some Pharmacist with principles.
 
#7
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
redgrain said:
I disagree - if it is a Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, whomever - and they cannot fulfill or will not fulfill a part of their job - filling scripts - they should not be doing that job. Unless there is someone else there available to do so. Since I could not get to the story, could not tell it that was the case.
Gonna have to diasgree with you on that one mate. I think that although I might not agree with his views, however medieval they may be, if he doesn't want to hand out the pill, which is still a controversial issue for some people, then he should not be obliged to.
I did add a caveat, mate - unless there is someone else there who can fill the script. And I think the code also says something about 'or a place nearby being able to fill it.' Problem comes in if there is only one druggist on duty and getting to another pharmacy is not convenient. Then the pharmacist should be obligated to 1) find someone who can fill it, or 2) not take the job.
 
#8
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
 
#9
Whilst I personally think any registered pharmacist should be required to dispense whatever has been prescribed by a doctor (for there could serious medical reasons to prevent pergnancy developing), the rules say they can refuse on ethical grounds. I'm with Redgrain on this one.

"Ethical" doesn't necessarily mean cutural or racial, although it is possible that some people (for example, a radical Muslim, Catholic or Jehova's Witness) could try to impose their values on their "host society" by claiming their refusal stems from ethics as opposed to prejudice.

Perhaps it is time that Area Health Authorities take ethical views of qualified staff into account when issuing pharmacy licenses? After all, there are many good medical reasons why a doctor may choose to prescribe emergency contracption*, and a failure to do so could result in potential harm to the health of the woman concerned.

Is it any licensed pharmacist's place to obstruct a doctor in the course of treating his/her patients, whetever the reasons?

(*The FFPRHC UK Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use specifically note current venous thromboembolism, current or past history of breast cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and acute intermittent porphyria as conditions where the advantages of using emergency contraceptive pills generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks)
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#10
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
redgrain said:
I disagree - if it is a Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, whomever - and they cannot fulfill or will not fulfill a part of their job - filling scripts - they should not be doing that job. Unless there is someone else there available to do so. Since I could not get to the story, could not tell it that was the case.

Gonna have to diasgree with you on that one mate. I think that although I might not agree with his views, however medieval they may be, if he doesn't want to hand out the pill, which is still a controversial issue for some people, then he should not be obliged to.

The spokesman said: "We would ask our pharmacists to do their best to help, to find another colleague to dispense the pill or to direct them to another pharmacy nearby."
As long as they follow those rules, preferably in the order in which they're listed, no dramas as I see it. Anyway, leaving it to the last minute, that's just bad admin. People have to take responsibility for their actions, can't go blaming unwanted pregnancies on some Pharmacist with principles.
Then he should pick up his cards on the way out. Lot's of people do lots of jobs where some of the work is objectionable but they are paid to do it. Where do you draw the line on issues like this?
 
#11
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
the couple in question were taking responsibility- they have two children and don't want anymore so when their normal method of contraception failed they went to get the morning after pill. I will agree they should have gone a bit sooner - but they should have the right to morning after contraception as should anyone.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
Poppy said:
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
the couple in question were taking responsibility- they have two children and don't want anymore so when their normal method of contraception failed they went to get the morning after pill. I will agree they should have gone a bit sooner - but they should have the right to morning after contraception as should anyone.
We're in the UK in the 21st century, it's not for a pharmacist to be making morale judgements of people and how they live their lives.
 
#13
Biscuits_AB said:
Poppy said:
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
the couple in question were taking responsibility- they have two children and don't want anymore so when their normal method of contraception failed they went to get the morning after pill. I will agree they should have gone a bit sooner - but they should have the right to morning after contraception as should anyone.
We're in the UK in the 21st century, it's not for a pharmacist to be making morale judgements of people and how they live their lives.
People should keep their religious beliefs to themselves when at work
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
Relgion shouldn't even be an issue. They are entitled to the service and it's his job to conduct that service. He could get his employer into bother with that sort of nonsense.

I've a funny feeling that this may be an old story though. It seems to ring bells.
 
#15
sky pixie believing fucckwit kunts like this should just be culled
 
#16
Yes, and rather than moaning to a newspaper they should have either requested to be served by another member of staff or gone to another Pharmacy. Not hard! I refuse to believe that it's that difficult to find another one in Manchester.


Edit.

I disagree entirely with the pharmacists position on this, but I think he should be allowed to right to refuse to sell the pill, whether on religious or on moral grounds.
 
#17
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
It is only a difficult line if it was the pharmacist himself yarking it up her all night...otherwise simple!
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#18
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
Yes, and rather than moaning to a newspaper they should have either requested to be served by another member of staff or gone to another Pharmacy. Not hard! I refuse to believe that it's that difficult to find another one in Manchester.


Edit.

I disagree entirely with the pharmacists position on this, but I think he should be allowed to right to refuse to sell the pill, whether on religious or on moral grounds.
Where would you draw the line then PBI? What about a muslim fireman refusing to put out a blaze at a lap dancing club because he didn't agree with western decadence?

What about their rights? Why should they go elsewhere?
 
#19
Poppy said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Poppy said:
Poor_Bloody_Infantry said:
I see where you're coming from, it's a difficult line to draw between the pharmacist having a duty to provide a service, and the woman taking some responsibility on herself.
the couple in question were taking responsibility- they have two children and don't want anymore so when their normal method of contraception failed they went to get the morning after pill. I will agree they should have gone a bit sooner - but they should have the right to morning after contraception as should anyone.
We're in the UK in the 21st century, it's not for a pharmacist to be making morale judgements of people and how they live their lives.
People should keep their religious beliefs to themselves when at work
Especially the Archgoat of Wales, Rowan Williams...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Yay - another outrage thread - despicable, really despicable.

If he was not prepared to issue what was in the Pharmacy inventory, he should not have taken the job.

That's like a Muslim working as an employee in the butchers section of Tesco and refusing to serve non-halal meat or pork. How long would he last? Could he sue for religious discrimination if he got moved from the counter or sacked?

We should have a law that states no service legally offered for sale to the general public can be denied to someone on religious grounds.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top