That's ridiculous. I can understand where the pharmacist was coming from but he could have referred her to somewhere else. it does say in the article though that he did do this and it is the customer that is denying this, so for all we know he may well have done so but she is saying he didn't to make more of a story. At uni, we've been told not to impose our beliefs onto any patients we may see, but if say for instance a patient wishes to have an abortion and we are against them, we have to refer them to another doctor, we can't refuse treatment outright.

I'm shocked
The pharmicist should be now out of a job, that poor woman, talk about make you feel guilty, does he also refuse to supply the pill, condoms etc etc?

If the pharmasist cannot serve the pill, there should be arrangements made for someone else to serve it; otherwise ASDA is imposing the religious beliefs of one person on all its customers.

If the pharmasist acted as the customer claims, he should be disciplined. If he acted as ASDA claims, then the fault isn't with the pharmasist acting on devout beliefs he felt obliged to follow, but with ASDA for not making the appropriate provision for both staff and customers.

---

by lil_miss
That's ridiculous. I can understand where the pharmacist was coming from but he could have referred her to somewhere else.

---

I can't see where he's coming from *at* all What is the problem with the morning after pill? It's not an 'abortion pill' which I believe (but may be wrong) empties the womb once the egg has attached. All the morning after pill does is prevents the egg from sticking (notice all my medical terms )

---

by lil_miss
At uni, we've been told not to impose our beliefs onto any patients we may see, but if say for instance a patient wishes to have an abortion and we are against them, we have to refer them to another doctor, we can't refuse treatment outright.

---

Which I kind of agree with. I'm pro-choice and would never judge anyone on their actions regarding pregnancy. Personally I couldn't face it myself (then again I've never been in the situation to have to consider it) but if I was a doctor and someone came to me I would sign the consent form.

Did I go off topic then.....

If it's against this persons religious beliefs to sell certain products that this shop sells they shouldn't be standing behind the counter in the first place.

In 99% of the cases religion has no place in the workplace!

*sigh* Stupid, stupid, stupid... I wonder if the pharmas... pharmac... pharmasc... (oh, sod it! ) person behind the counter managed to pull their stupid foot out of their stupid mouth before or after they most likely found themself out of a job?

---

by Chambler
If it's against this persons religious beliefs to sell certain products that this shop sells they shouldn't be standing behind the counter in the first place.

In 99% of the cases religion has no place in the workplace!

---

Completely agree.

Respecting someones religious/moral beliefs is a two way street and the pharmacist has no respect for the purchaser.

I cant believe that! Its digusting, ok fair enough it's his belief but he has absoluteley no right to prevent the woman from buying it. My family is catholic but I'm pro-choice and none of my family would ever have a problem with that, I don't think anyone has a right to deny any woman that choice.

As Chambler said he shouldn't have been behind that counter in the first place, or there should be another pharmacist on hand who is willing to serve her.

---

by Eve
I cant believe that! Its digusting, ok fair enough it's his belief but he has absoluteley no right to prevent the woman from buying it. My family is catholic but I'm pro-choice and none of my family would ever have a problem with that, I don't think anyone has a right to deny any woman that choice.

As Chambler said he shouldn't have been behind that counter in the first place, or there should be another pharmacist on hand who is willing to serve her.

---

I suppose it would be like asking a pacifist to sell a kalashnikov.

There should definitely have been someone else on hand to sell her the pill.

It wouldn't exactly have been hard to say "I'm sorry I can't sell you this, could you please wait whilst I get another member of staff" would it? She's probably the type who'd be the first to complain of religious oppresion. Pathetic.

---

by Chambler
If it's against this persons religious beliefs to sell certain products that this shop sells they shouldn't be standing behind the counter in the first place.

In 99% of the cases religion has no place in the workplace!

---

So the woman is allowed to make an ethical choice, but the pharmacist isn't?

So 99% of jobs in this country should be staffed by atheists? So if you have a religious belief you cannot be employed? Mmmmmm I thought that everybody in this country had the freedom of right to have an opinion. We look down on society's that are run by religious leaders, religion motivates and underscores everything. If you arenÂ’t religious you are wrong. Yet to me this just seems the flipside. Unless you accept any and all values, however skewed they maybe, youÂ’re wrong.

---

A spokesman for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society said: "We are sorry that the lady was not satisfied with the service she received.

"It would appear on the face of it that the pharmacist was operating within the bounds of the code of ethics and standards set out by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which states that where a pharmacist's religious beliefs prevent them from providing a service they must advise patients of alternative sources for the service requested.

---

So it's outrageous that someone has a code of ethics that they adhere to? If the governing body sets out the standards, who are we to disagree? Or should we just get rid of all the so called experts, in every field? Everyman (or woman ) knows better?

For centuries there was religious persecution, horrendous things done in the name of religion, but the cause for religion made things ok, are we now having a witch hunt for Christians? Maybe we could find a few hungry lions?

---

by Eve
I cant believe that! Its disgusting, ok fair enough it's his belief but he has absolutely no right to prevent the woman from buying it. My family is catholic but I'm pro-choice and none of my family would ever have a problem with that, I don't think anyone has a right to deny any woman that choice.

---

What I do find strange is that any and every store retains the right to refuse to serve someone, there is no right of purchase in law in this country that I'm aware of. To deny someone on the grounds of race and religion would be wrong, but the right to choose whom to serve still prevails. If we took this away we would be taking away the freedom of choice.

If no one has the right to deny anotherÂ’s choice, by definition you have taken away their choice.

If the woman chooses to use the morning after pill, that is entirely her own business; but she has no right to demand that the pharmacist in question serves it, she was given alternatives. If someone came into my place of work and demanded that I sold them something, I can assure you they wouldnÂ’t be getting anything at all.

If you give someone absolute freedom of choice, that choice by itÂ’s very nature impacts on anotherÂ’s right to choose. I could understand if this woman was absolutely refused, in any shop or store, the right to choose, but she quite clearly wasnÂ’t. There were alternatives. So is this a debate about freedom of rights? Perhaps that is rather axiomatic, of course it is, by voicing opinions we are exercising that right, a right that would seem to be denied to the pharmacist?

And one last thing before I get stoned to death for being a heretic, has anyone else seen the cobwebs up in that corner?

---

by TNT
(quotes)
If no one has the right to deny anotherÂ’s choice, by definition you have taken away their choice.

---

But how far can you take that? If everyone expressed their right of choice to the extremes then society would cease to function properly.

If I chose not to do pieces of work that my boss had given me then I wouldn't be surprsed if he/she chose to fire me. If doing part of my job was against my religion, I'd have to question why I'd taken that job in the first place?

You have to find some sort of middle ground which gives the best compromise.

---

by TNT
What I do find strange is that any and every store retains the right to refuse to serve someone, there is no right of purchase in law in this country that I'm aware of.

---

But surely there should be a variable in the equation? Surely the decision to refuse service should be based on the person you are serving and not the product. In this case it wouldn't have mattered who was purchasing the product - the pharmacist would still have refused. The store might as well put up a sign saying 'We refuse to sell such and such products between the following times...'.

It can probably be successfully argued that ASDA and the employee have not done anything against the rules/guidelines. Unfortunately it seems that in this case, the rules/guidelines and common sense follow different paths



(Edited by DJ Billy 04/02/2004 21:03)

---

by Teresa

I can't see where he's coming from *at* all What is the problem with the morning after pill? It's not an 'abortion pill' which I believe (but may be wrong) empties the womb once the egg has attached. All the morning after pill does is prevents the egg from sticking (notice all my medical terms )

---

Not that I disagree with you, but 'where he's coming from', he would believe it to be an abortion pill as presumably his beliefs are that life begins at conception.

I think Asda are more to blame than this particular bloke - if he has a reigious belief that makes him unable to supply this product, why have they not ensured that someone else was available to do so? It does seem that the situation should have been forseen and some kind of procedure put in place.

Wasn't she offered alternative places to buy it though? Why on earth should she treck off somewhere else when surely to god there must have been someone else in the whole of ASDA capable of serving her!

---

by TNT
We look down on society's that are run by religious leaders

---

I think we look down on places were religion is used to supress and control people or where people have no opportunity to make their own decisions because coming from where we do we have those opportunities and dont understand why anyone else should be denied them. Perhaps religion is becoming less and less important in this country but perhaps some religious views can be considered out dated(not the abortion one.)

I'm not saying that people shouldnt have their beliefs, Ive got so many friends etc with different views and opinions on stuff like abortion and that's their right and I'd never try to change their views for mine. I just think that IMO no-one should be able to be controlled by religion and no-one should be able to do something like that guy of denying a woman something she has every right to have.

Im not explaining myself very well sorry and also punctuation is kind of eluding me!...I might try and write it again in proper english later!

Cant remember who's just said it but perhaps ASDA is infact more to blame, this is one of those arguements were its going to go round in circles and everyones going to get frustrated trying to get their views across so I've kind of said my piece, in a confused not making alot of sense kind of way.


(Edited by Eve 05/02/2004 03:04)

---

by TNT
(quotes)
So the woman is allowed to make an ethical choice, but the pharmacist isn't?

---

If your religion interferes with your job then you shouldnt be doing that job pure and simple. I dislike parts of my job but i have to do them as should the pharmacist as much as he detests it.

---

by TNT
(quotes)
So the woman is allowed to make an ethical choice, but the pharmacist isn't?

---

So now the pharmacist is allowed to force his ethical choice upon someone else?

If you are jewish you might want to consider not becoming a stable boy at a pig farm. As your job means that you will have to work with pigs which kinda is against your believes. Doesn't mean you can't do the job it just means that if you take the job you can't really complain afterwards that you have to get down and dirty with the pigs

Same is valid for the pharmacist: A person trained in preparing and distributing medicines and give information about them. If distributing medicines is against your believe you shouldn't have become a pharmacist! And if you have trouble with certain medicines you are or not able to do your job properly and you should be fired or someone should be there to take over from you.

If you become a pharmacist you have certain responsibilities and if you can't handle those for some reason or another you should communicate this with your boss so the appropriate measures can be taken.

And there is no such thing as absolute freedom of choice. As we are limited by law, by finances, by time, by location etc ... So there is no absolute freedom of choice.... I cannot choose to have purple coca cola at a table on top of the Tower Bridge at 3 in the morning on boxingday.

---

by voicing opinions we are exercising that right, a right that would seem to be denied to the pharmacist

---

There is a differance between voicing an opinion and forcing your opinion on others. This woman made a choice which was totally not unreasonable you goto a pharmacy where you expect to buy these type of medications you goto the person that is in charge or selling these goods and they deny you the right to buy this product on their own personal believes.

---

by TNT


So the woman is allowed to make an ethical choice, but the pharmacist isn't?

---

He made his decsion based on his religous beliefs,not because he didn't think the product was suitable for the lady, not because the product she wanted wasnt suitable for her, not because there were other medications that would have suited her better...but because of his religous beliefs,according to the code of ethics any of the issues pharmacists are called upon to resolve are unambiguous and the decision will be obvious. However,when faced with ethical dilemmas pharmacists are expected to use their professional judgment in deciding on the most appropriate course of action They must be able to justify their decisions to their peers, and to any person or organisation which may be affected by their actions, Including individual patients, the public, the National Health Service, their employers, and other health care professionals. Pharmacists may be accountable to any of these note the expected to use their professional judgment he didn't do this he used his relgious judgment

---

by TNT
We look down on society's that are run by religious leaders, religion motivates and underscores everything. If you arenÂ’t religious you are wrong. Yet to me this just seems the flipside. Unless you accept any and all values, however skewed they maybe, youÂ’re wrong.

---

He had a religious belief and imposed it on someone else, where do we draw the line?

---

by TNT

So it's outrageous that someone has a code of ethics that they adhere to?

---

Not at all, but them they should seriously look at their chosen profession and wether they can do what their profession asks them to do surely?

---

by TNT
What I do find strange is that any and every store retains the right to refuse to serve someone, there is no right of purchase in law in this country that I'm aware of. To deny someone on the grounds of race and religion would be wrong, but the right to choose whom to serve still prevails. If we took this away we would be taking away the freedom of choice.

---

You hit the nail on the head there, you just agreed with what the majority of us are saying ... To deny someone on the grounds of race and religion would be wrong Thats exactly what he did, he denied her on the grounds of his religion!

To attack the Pharmicist is the wrong way to go, to attack him standing up for his ethics and religous beliefs is wrong, the code of ethics does infact sate before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors which may affect their ability to provide services.
Where pharmacists' religious beliefs or personal convictions prevent them from providing a service they must not condemn or criticise the patient and they or a member of staff must advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested

So he was indeed following the code if he had of course informed ASDA's of this, so the responsibility of this must lay in their hands, the morning after pill is very commonly issued over chemist counters through out this country, it is a product that ASDA'S should have known would be asked for, there should have been appropriate ways of dispensing this medication put in place.

/me knew TNT should have let me debate this with him last night

---

by TNT
So 99% of jobs in this country should be staffed by atheists?

---

A minor sidepoint but Atheism isn't a lack of religious belief, it's simply a belief that there is no god.

Pedant!