NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6049750.stm)
A Rotherham woman has complained after a Muslim pharmacist refused to give her the morning after pill because it was against his religious beliefs.

Mother-of-two Jo-Ann Thomas, of Thurcroft, said she was concerned teenage girls may be turned away from the branch of Lloyds Pharmacy.

In a statement, the company said it wanted to apologise to Ms Thomas.

But it said the pharmacist was acting within his rights under an industry code of ethics.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's code allows a pharmacist to refuse to sell or dispense drugs because of their religious or moral beliefs.

Ms Thomas was referred to her GP by the pharmacist who refused to sell her the pill.

She said: "If I had not been able to get it and I had got pregnant, would an abortion have suited him better?

"Everybody has their own beliefs and their own opinions and that is fine, but they are yours, you can't force them down someone's throat, it is not fair."

Dr John Radford, of Rotherham Primary Care Trust, said incidents such as this were rare.

He said: "The pharmacist, or any other health professional, has a duty to put the patient in touch with another practitioner.

"In this case the pharmacists put the patient in touch with her local surgery."

I'm not so bothered by the main story, because it's within the regulations of the industry and the woman was put in touch with someone who would give her the pill.

What I do take issue with is the part I bolded. That is absolutely ridiculous. Doctors and nurses in this country have to agree to treat anyone, regardless of race, religion, mental state, physical state or anything. So why should dispensing pharmacists be allowed to pick and choose who they give drugs to?

Well, that's the thing about Capitalism.

He'll eventually go out of business to/make less money than a Chemist that does supply the pill.

Yay for the Free Market.

Why is it news when a Muslim chemist refuses to dispense the morning-after pill, but not news when Catholic chemists refuse to do so? [/media conspiracy theory]

Why is it news when a Muslim chemist refuses to dispense the morning-after pill, but not news when Catholic chemists refuse to do so? [/media conspiracy theory]
Oh yes, because Catholics get such a good press in this country. :rolleyes:

Pfft, capitalism. Fact of the matter is, if it's so against people's religious beliefs, why do they stock it in the first place? I say that it shouldn't matter if the person selling it is Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or Seventh Day Adventist, you haven't got the right to force your beliefs onto others by forcing them not to buy a certain product. It's just stupid.

Why is it news when a Muslim chemist refuses to dispense the morning-after pill, but not news when Catholic chemists refuse to do so? [/media conspiracy theory]

It was totally news when a Catholic chemist did it, and was argued and all sorts of regular nonsense. There was many a thread on it here. (I don't know if it was a Catholic specifically...)

But yeah, regardless of what you call your imaginary friend, if you're in the health field then despense the drugs-if you want your imaginary friend to do it get a tent and a choir...

It is within the companies rights to let employees decide, I guess.
However, if a I somehow doubt that it can be legal for a chemist to refuse medication to a customer on the grounds of his own religious beliefs... it would be a bit like a doctor refusing to treat STDs, wouldn't it?

you haven't got the right to force your beliefs onto others by forcing them not to buy a certain product.
They're not forcing people not to buy it - they're refusing to sell it. This is completely legal, so long as it's on the basis of the seller's religion and not the buyer's religion. (In fact, you can refuse to serve a person for any reason not covered by anti-discrimination legislation - for example, if you don't like the colour of their socks.)

They're not forcing people not to buy it - they're refusing to sell it. This is completely legal, so long as it's on the basis of the seller's religion and not the buyer's religion. (In fact, you can refuse to serve a person for any reason not covered by anti-discrimination legislation - for example, if you don't like the colour of their socks.)

True, they can't stop them from buying it someplace else, but it's still quite a push onto of religious beliefs. I just find that incredibly stupid is all.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, I need sleep.

It is within the companies rights to let employees decide, I guess.
However, if a I somehow doubt that it can be legal for a chemist to refuse medication to a customer on the grounds of his own religious beliefs... it would be a bit like a doctor refusing to treat STDs, wouldn't it?
According to the story, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists to refuse to give drugs if it goes against their religious beliefs. So, no, it's not like a doctor refusing to treat STDs.

If a doctor did try to refuse treatment on religious grounds, the patient could complain to the GMC and the doctor could face being struck off. Apparently, if a chemist refuses medication to a patient, they can refer them to a doctor and then be backed up by their company.

According to the story, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists to refuse to give drugs if it goes against their religious beliefs. So, no, it's not like a doctor refusing to treat STDs.

If a doctor did try to refuse treatment on religious grounds, the patient could complain to the GMC and the doctor could face being struck off. Apparently, if a chemist refuses medication to a patient, they can refer them to a doctor and then be backed up by their company.

And I think that shouldn't be allowed, really.
It's not as if that woman had asked for over the counter medication. To get the morning after pill, she needs a prescription from a doctor. It's emergency medication, and the chemist should not be allowed to refuse to sell it.

While I don't agree with it, I don't see why they can't refuse to sell someone the pill, so long as there is another place it can be acquired.

And I think that shouldn't be allowed, really.
It's not as if that woman had asked for over the counter medication. To get the morning after pill, she needs a prescription from a doctor. It's emergency medication, and the chemist should not be allowed to refuse to sell it.

Really? Here it's freely avaliable without a prescription, as it should be. Given as you said, it is emergency medication.

Well, this has happened in the States with chemists refusing to give the pill. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4425603.stm
Granted, it is probably easier in the UK to go to the next pharmacy and get it that it is the US, but it doesn't make it any better. But what I don't understand, why you would pick a job that you might have to choose between serving a customer or go against your religion? If you think that of a reasonable situation when that could happen, I would say you need to look for a different career. I think that people like that should be sacked. You shouldn't be able to refuse medical treatment just because you think that it is wrong.

And I think that shouldn't be allowed, really.
It's not as if that woman had asked for over the counter medication. To get the morning after pill, she needs a prescription from a doctor. It's emergency medication, and the chemist should not be allowed to refuse to sell it.
Since 2001 women over 16 have been able to get the morning-after pill without a prescription (in the UK).

Since 2001 women over 16 have been able to get the morning-after pill without a prescription (in the UK).

Ah, ok. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information :)

Since 2001 women over 16 have been able to get the morning-after pill without a prescription (in the UK).
Actually, in many ways that's even worse - rather than being asked discreet questions by the doctor, women get asked them on the shop floor, potentially in front of customers instead.

I heard a story about a woman who was asked all kinds of questions, such as when the intercourse took place, how long ago, how regularly she had it etc at the front of a queue in a busy shop. This was a respectable, middle aged woman with kids, so I'd hate to think how embarrassing it would be for anyone younger.

Actually, in many ways that's even worse - rather than being asked discreet questions by the doctor, women get asked them on the shop floor, potentially in front of customers instead.

I heard a story about a woman who was asked all kinds of questions, such as when the intercourse took place, how long ago, how regularly she had it etc at the front of a queue in a busy shop. This was a respectable, middle aged woman with kids, so I'd hate to think how embarrassing it would be for anyone younger.

That's terrible. I know in Australia, they actually have a room out the back of most places to discuss these things, and I think that's the ideal situation.

Why is it news when a Muslim chemist refuses to dispense the morning-after pill, but not news when Catholic chemists refuse to do so? [/media conspiracy theory]

Actually, ironically, it is an issue. In Washington state a large battle was waged over "The rights of pharmacists".

That's terrible. I know in Australia, they actually have a room out the back of most places to discuss these things, and I think that's the ideal situation.

Yeah, there are rooms available in the UK as well, but I think most people just want to grab the stuff and get out, so they're more likely to mumble it quickly at the counter than prolong the experience by asking for a room.

Unfortunately, there is no quick way of getting it (pharmacists have to ask questions before giving you drugs), so their initial embarrassment causes it to become ten times worse.

What a fuck.
As a nurse, it's my duty to treat anyone and everyone as best as I can, regardless of 'race', religion, wealth, political stance or penis length.

As a chemist it's his fucking duty to sell all avalaible drugs to anyone and everyone needing them, regardless of 'race', religion, wealth or penis length, if it's in accordance with the legalities (i.e. no selling of prescrition drugs if the guy doesn't have a prescrition).

Assholes like this make very, very angry.

If you want a job where you make fukken money, apply at a bank or stuff like that. If you become a doc, a nurse, a chemist or even a cab driver, i.e. join a branche dedicated to public service, than you better fuckin' do your job, or you're in an utterly wrong branch of work.

I usually am all for 'each to their own', but with a job like chemist, you are no longer to your fuckin' own, you entered public service, regardless if it's a private business or not.

If you want people to act according to your delusional believes, go create a monastery with like-minded morons, sorry, people, but don't fuckin' go into public service.

On a sidenote, I begin to wonder when some of the more right-wingy butchers decide it's against their believe to sell non-pork meat, or to further allow the slaughter of innocent non-pig animals.

What a fuckin' wanker. :headbang:


(P.S.: Please excuse the excessive cursing, but this 'chemist' is nothing but a piece of shit - and this is due to his actions, not due to him being a moslem or a catholic or whatever.)

[/rant]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6049750.stm)


I'm not so bothered by the main story, because it's within the regulations of the industry and the woman was put in touch with someone who would give her the pill.

What I do take issue with is the part I bolded. That is absolutely ridiculous. Doctors and nurses in this country have to agree to treat anyone, regardless of race, religion, mental state, physical state or anything. So why should dispensing pharmacists be allowed to pick and choose who they give drugs to?

Are the feminists and human rights activists protesting or is it too un-PC to protest muslims or maybe they are afraid of insulting Islam and receiving death threats or both or whatever?

-snip-
[/rant]
If you read the story properly, you'd see that the chemist was acting within his rights. I bolded part of the story, which says that the regulatory body for dispensing chemists in this country allows chemists to refuse to give medication if it goes against their religious beliefs. I made it clear that I took issue with that, not that the chemist happened to be a Muslim.

Are the feminists and human rights activists protesting or is it too un-PC to protest muslims or maybe they are afraid of insulting Islam and receiving death threats or both or whatever?
I don't care who else is protesting. I'm protesting that chemists should be allowed to pick and choose who they might deign to give drugs to, when doctors, nurses and other health professionals have to treat whoever comes to them. There should not be this double standard, and chemists should give the drugs to whoever asks for them.

I don't care who else is protesting. I'm protesting that chemists should be allowed to pick and choose who they might deign to give drugs to, when doctors, nurses and other health professionals have to treat whoever comes to them. There should not be this double standard, and chemists should give the drugs to whoever asks for them.

Are pharmacists held under the hippocratic oath?

Are pharmacists held under the hippocratic oath?
Not that I'm aware of. In the UK, doctors aren't technically under the hippocratic oath - they swear to a modern oath (dating from around 1950) which pretty much incorporates all of the hippocratic oath (my girlfriend's a medical student, and it's in one of her textbooks).

If you read the story properly, you'd see that the chemist was acting within his rights. I bolded part of the story, which says that the regulatory body for dispensing chemists in this country allows chemists to refuse to give medication if it goes against their religious beliefs. I made it clear that I took issue with that, not that the chemist happened to be a Muslim.

I read that part, and I was hoping that

"but this 'chemist' is nothing but a piece of shit - and this is due to his actions, not due to him being a moslem or a catholic or whatever."

might give away that I'm of the same opinion.


edit:
I don't care who else is protesting. I'm protesting that chemists should be allowed to pick and choose who they might deign to give drugs to, when doctors, nurses and other health professionals have to treat whoever comes to them. There should not be this double standard, and chemists should give the drugs to whoever asks for them.
That's the stance I'm referring to, but didn't seem to be able to convey for all the swear words. Note to self: less emotion, more communication.

Not that I'm aware of. In the UK, doctors aren't technically under the hippocratic oath - they swear to a modern oath (dating from around 1950) which pretty much incorporates all of the hippocratic oath (my girlfriend's a medical student, and it's in one of her textbooks).

Shouldn't this guy get fired for violation of this oath? I'm assuming it does have a part about refusing to treat someone?

Are pharmacists held under the hippocratic oath?

I doubt it very much, pharmacists are basically shopkeepers, not doctors.

Shouldn't this guy get fired for violation of this oath? I'm assuming it does have a part about refusing to treat someone?

The big difference is that if a Doctor refuses to treat someone, they can do harm. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense drugs, you just go to another pharmacy.

I read that part, and I was hoping that

"but this 'chemist' is nothing but a piece of shit - and this is due to his actions, not due to him being a moslem or a catholic or whatever."

might give away that I'm of the same opinion.


edit:

That's the stance I'm referring to, but didn't seem to be able to convey for all the swear words. Note to self: less emotion, more communication.

Apologies. I assumed you were ranting against the specific chemist, not chemists (or their regulatory body) in general.

It was totally news when a Catholic chemist did it, and was argued and all sorts of regular nonsense. There was many a thread on it here. (I don't know if it was a Catholic specifically...)
We had a huge thread on here some months ago about a fundamentalist Christian pharmacist in the US doing the same.

And other than in most parts of the UK, in the US it actually can get pretty tricky if some rural pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications. It's not like you can just go a couple blocks down to the next one.

Apologies. I assumed you were ranting against the specific chemist, not chemists (or their regulatory body) in general.

No harm done :p

-snip- I just noticed I started to go off on another rant, but I guess that's redundant.
Anyways,... *starts to calm down*