pharmacists refusing requests

[bigboab]

In a recent case in the UK an assistant in a pharmacists(BOOTS) refused to serve a customer the morning after pill. Her excuse was that it was against her religion to do encourage this. A Boots spokesperson stated that the customer should have been directed to someone who would have assisted.

Give the following scenario what do you think should happen. The only pharmacist in a small highland town is owned by a person of the above religious persuasion. They are the only employees. The nearest other pharmacy is 20 miles away as is the nearest medical centre. They refuse to serve items on religious grounds. Do you think that the local council would be in their rights to withdraw their licence to trade in that area?

[Cheese]

Yes, because they are supposed to be serving their local community for their medical needs (insofar as a pharmacy fulfills this role). If they can't for whatever reason then they should be replaced.

[Busyman]

Something similar happened in America last year.

The pharmacist is an idiot. If they couldn't do their job properly they need to be fired and if not fired they their licensed revoked.

As far as I know the morning after pill stops conception and does not kill a "baby".

[MagicNakor]

Yes, they would.

Pharmacists don't get to decide which people get which drugs. That decision is ultimately up to the doctor and patient.

[bigboab]

As far as I know the morning after pill stops conception and does not kill a "baby".

It must stop conception or there would be no point in taking it. This would make it unacceptable to at least two religions that I know off.

[Cheese]

It must stop conception or there would be no point in taking it. This would make it unacceptable to at least two religions that I know off.

So the extreme would be a pharmacist refusing to serve any contraception at all because it is against their religious beliefs?

It would be like me refusing to serve someone a lamb chop in Tescos because I'm a militant vegan (you know the type, refuse to even drive through a town with 'ham' in the name...).

I think MN has put it best though:

That decision is ultimately up to the doctor and patient.

[bigboab]

So the extreme would be a pharmacist refusing to serve any contraception at all because it is against their religious beliefs?

It would be like me refusing to serve someone a lamb chop in Tescos because I'm a militant vegan (you know the type, refuse to even drive through a town with 'ham' in the name...).

I think MN has put it best though:

You are a Militant Vegan!

[Cheese]

You are a Militant Vegan!

If I was I would simply be called 'With'.

[bigboab]

If I was I would simply be called 'With'.

Will they refuse to sell 'ham' flavoured thingyboabers. They wouldn't do that though. Big money involved there.

[Everose]

bigboab, is this a privately owned pharmacy? Not part of a chain of pharmacies?

Are we talking about two separate pharmacies?

The first was actually an assistant in a pharmacy where other pharmacists would have filled the prescription? In the case of the assistant, I would say that needs to be addressed between her and her employers. If they are willing to work around this, it sounds like it could be done, with other workers filling such prescriptions. If that is acceptable to the owner of the pharmacy. Some people are valuable workers even excluding certain duties. I would say it is the owners decision, and that the assistant should have called another worker over to wait on the customer. By not doing this, the assistant was trying to make a stand, call attention to her cause, possibly?

In the second case, if the Council withdrew the privately owned pharmacy's license, would it be 'cutting off it's nose to spite it's face', so to speak? How hard is it for this area to get pharmacies? I would also have to look at the licensing ordinances to see just how much control of businesses the Council actually has with their licensing. I guess I feel that if it is a privately owned business, they can offer what services they wish; take it or leave it. If they choose to lose a certain faction of the public's business, it is their decision and their resulting loss of income.

I know of a similar situation in a rural area where there is a privately owned Catholic hospital. Good hospital, the only one in the largest City in a rural area. No local tax money involved in the running of it. This hospital refuses to allow Dr's to perform vasectomies or tubal ligations on it's premises. So the same Dr's. that practice there schedule these procedures twenty miles away at a much smaller, publicly owned hospital. No one has disputed this refusal of services by this Catholic hospital that I am aware of. They are privately owned and operate under their belief system.

I guess I feel as long as they are not using public funds, the public doesn't have a lot of input into what they offer, other than taking their business elsewhere if they object to a privately owned business' selective way of doing business.