pharmacists refusing requests

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?

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.

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".

Yes, they would.

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

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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? :unsure:

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:

Quote:

---

That decision is ultimately up to the doctor and patient.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

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

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! :ohmy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

You are a Militant Vegan! :ohmy:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

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

---

:lol:

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

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :)

---

It is 'Boots' one of the biggest pharmacy outlets in the world. They produce a lot of their own products. They have a few factories in the UK. They also have a pharmacy/chemist shop in every 'town/city' in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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.

---

What religions?

As far as no point, if the pill kills the fertilized egg wouldn't that be a point in taking it too?

A pharmacists job is to fill my prescription, try to answer any questions I might have about said drug, and

:01: :angry: STFU!!!! and GTFO!!!! :angry: :01:

of my face about anything else.

Maybe the lady can drop the newborn off at the pharmacy.

Was the person in question a pharmacist or pharmacist assistant (just works behind the counter and has to ask the pharmacist to serve certain "over the counter drugs")?
If it was the pharmacist then Boots probably have every right to dismiss him/her if the customer had a prescription. Religious reasons are no excuse to not dispense the drugs, and in my opinion as I don't know British law in this field the pharmacist should have his license revoked.

If it was just an assistant then boots may have trouble sacking the person as they could be place in other areas of the store (tesco lost a case after sacking a non smoker that refused to work the tobacco counter). But then an assistant would probably not be qualified to dispense this pill.

@ busy... off my head the biggest religion I can think of that would be against contraception of any kind would be the catholic church.

Maybe the lady can drop the newborn off at the pharmacy.[/QUOTE]



:lol: :lol: I think she would also be 'carrying things a bit far' to make a point. :D

A pharmacy which is privately owned can stock whichever drugs it deems acceptable to the owner. It has no obligation to carry all drugs.

The desire to stock the widest variety is to provide for the locals to secure their business, but if the owner takes offense at a certain drug, he has every right NOT to carry it.

That is the free market sytem. The downside is that a competitor can come along and drive you out of business if you are not meeting the needs of a certain community.

In the case of BOOTS, the corporate owners have no problem with the "morning after" pill and therefore all their employees will be required to sell it. That is what the job entails, if you cannot do it, work elsewhere or as Everose says, work it out with your co-workers so that the customer is served.

Not entirely sure why this person did not ask to see the manager. But as Boots stock (make) all forms of contraception then the individual was perfectly entitled to expect a non-embarrassing visit to their shop.

The assistant should have made her objections known to the manager not the customer.

Presumaly Boots apologised and gave her some free samples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

But as Boots stock (make) all forms of contraception then the individual was perfectly entitled to expect a non-embarrassing visit to their shop.

---

Yes, it's like when the person at the adult bookstore yells, "I need a price check on the 10 inch donkey dong vibrator" then asks, at the same volume, if you want some lube with that, it's on sale. :no:

That Mathea, she really liked to dick with the customers and little Jonno was so embarrassed :ph34r:

I think I'll head back to the lounge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

@ busy... off my head the biggest religion I can think of that would be against contraception of any kind would be the catholic church.

---

That makes sense since the Catholic church, not the religion, makes no sense. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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".

---

It doesnt matter what the pill does. All these anti-abortion assholes are in to control women, they dont care about life. And the ones who claim they do just do it because it was pounded into their head to believe. :no:

If a pharmacist refuses to serve customers, they need to be replaced and dont deserve legal protection. :01:

The assistant was not a Catholic. She was a Muslim. As already stated by Boots the customer should have been redirected to someone who would be of help. But to the assistant would that not be just the same as serving the customer?


P.S. I had tried to avoid naming the religion of the assistant. But as the Catholic Church appeared to be getting the blame, I have relented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

P.S. I had tried to avoid naminmg the religion of the assistant. But as the Catholic Church appeared to be getting the blame, I have relented.

---

I don't think that the catholic church was getting blamed, certainly not by me, it is just the one that springs to mind when it comes to "no contraception" policy as an example of religions being not just anti abortion but also anti anything that could stop conception

Let the pharmacist have her own beliefs. Just go across the street to the next store ffs.

Now if the store has their own policy against this (which I'm sure they do), then that can be taken up quietly between the store and its employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Let the pharmacist have her own beliefs. Just go across the street to the next store ffs.

Now if the store has their own policy against this (which I'm sure they do), then that can be taken up quietly between the store and its employee.

---

That was the whole point of the thread. The next store may be 20 miles away.

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.

---

As I said before, a pharmacy is a business, and can sell what it wishes.

If the people don't like it, thay can shop elsewhere.

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.

---

Hear Hear (In type of course). :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

As I said before, a pharmacy is a business, and can sell what it wishes.

If the people don't like it, thay can shop elsewhere.

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.

---

This is the case if it were an over the counter medicine.

If it were an NHS prescription (and it is not clear if this was the case) then Boots would (if they wished to continue to be paid by the NHS) have to provide the medicines stated. That said this was clearly an individual's personal problem rather than company policy, which has to be one of the largest outlets for contraception in the country.

Boots recruitment and staff training should perhaps have dealt with this issue long before it hit the shop floor. The short piece seem to imply that Boots felt their policy was clear on this matter and suggested that perhaps the staff member, by omission or deliberate subversion, failed to carry out company policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Hear Hear (In type of course). :01:

---

Yes, but they have no such obligation.

A doctor may make a prescription, but no independent business has any obligation to fulfill it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

This is the case if it were an over the counter medicine.

If it were an NHS prescription (and it is not clear if this was the case) then Boots would (if they wished to continue to be paid by the NHS) have to provide the medicines stated. That said this was clearly an individual's personal problem rather than company policy, which has to be one of the largest outlets for contraception in the country.

Boots recruitment and staff training should perhaps have dealt with this issue long before it hit the shop floor. The hort piece seem to imply that Boots felt their policy was clear on this matter and suggested that perhaps the staff member by omission or deliberate subversion failed to carry out company policy.

---

Biggles,

If a business subscribed to a contract that required that all approved medicines should be provided then I have absolutely no objection.

I am just saying that an an independently owned pharmacy can stock what it wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.

---

In the Uk at least they would need to abide by certain laws and conditions set out in their license.

i would not like to say what the case is in the USA as it is a minefield when it comes to differing state laws.

I don't think it is up to the assistant to judge whether or not to dispense a drug on moral or religious grounds. Its rather like saying to a gay man with Aids that he can't have his drugs as they don't approve of their lifestyle for whatever reason. Another example is the refusal to allow a patient to have their insulin (derived from pig pancreas) for religious reasons.

In a secular and apparently democratic society, surely it is not appropriate for individuals to make moral judgements based on personal religious grounds.

Hmm, I don't know about the UK, but here you need a license to sell drugs, and an education in the medical field, and all of it is sanctioned and in part controlled by the government.

So for someone to not fulfil their duty the way that person did would get them in trouble here, and rightly so.

nvm the last part tho'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Yes, but they have no such obligation.

A doctor may make a prescription, but no independent business has any obligation to fulfill it.

---

In the UK failing to obligate a doctors prescription could result in the loss of your Licence to supply doctors prescriptions. This is not a private matter and is controlled by a Government Department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

In the Uk at least they would need to abide by certain laws and conditions set out in their license.

i would not like to say what the case is in the USA as it is a minefield when it comes to differing state laws.

---

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

In the UK failing to obligate a doctors prescription could result in the loss of your Licence to supply doctors prescriptions. This is not a private matter and is controlled by a Government Department.

---

Well, the US is not the UK. To me, in a free market system, no individual should feel compelled to dispense what he does not seem fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

---

They have these in the UK too. They are regarded as 'Cranks' by the majority of people. Doctors will not/can not issue prescriptions for these places as they are not licenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

---

But this is a Uk pharmacy licensed under government control. A herbal remedy pharmacy would not require a license as it is considered an "alternative" remedy and would not be subject to prescription. Herbal pharmacies would come under "foods"
The Uk pharmacy operates with certain very different practices to American ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

They have these in the UK too. They are regarded as 'Cranks' by the majority of people. Doctors will not/can not issue prescriptions for these places as they are not licenced.

---

So what, they are still a "pharmacy"

That is the point.

A pharmacy is not what you want them to dispense, but more what they wish to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Well, the US is not the UK. To me, in a free market system, no individual should feel compelled to dispense what he does not seem fit.

---

That's fine in theory, as long has no one has to suffer for it.

However, I think a certain amount of control over licensed businesses is a good thing, that way we are sure to get the medicines we need when we need them, and anyone who doesn't like to sell them can go peddle ginseng and omega 3 to their heart's content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

But this is a Uk pharmacy licensed under government control. A herbal remedy pharmacy would not require a license as it is considered an "alternative" remedy and would not be subject to prescription. Herbal pharmacies would come under "foods"
The Uk pharmacy operates with certain very different practices to American ones.

---

A pharmacy can offer the approved drugs, but it has no obligation to do so. That is purely a business matter, unless they have a contract which specifizes (misspelled word) otherwise.

A pharmacy is a business, and a business can operate as it pleases.