pharmacists refusing requests

[bigboab]

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.

[Busyman]

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

STFU!!!! and GTFO!!!!

of my face about anything else.

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

[vidcc]

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.

[Everose]

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



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

[hobbes]

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.

[Biggles]

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.

[hobbes]

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.

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

I think I'll head back to the lounge.

[Busyman]

@ 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.

[Arm]

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.

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

[bigboab]

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.