Good grief how could that chemist be so inhuman? The poor woman would be in a terrible state in the first place and to go and try and get help and get that reaction would make her feel even worse The thought of carrying a child as a result of rape

This lady needed a prescription filled. IE a doctor said it was necessary. And i agree the pharmacist should have filled it/ he doesnt know better than a doctor.

In the UK the morning after pill is available without prescription.

There was also a letter i read in the mail after said article. transcript of the letter to follow.

---

by Cat
This lady needed a prescription filled. IE a doctor said it was necessary. And i agree the pharmacist should have filled it/ he doesnt know better than a doctor.

---

But what about women who don't report rapes 'cos they're too scared? Should they be denied the pill? Should they be forced to go through another trauma, to have an abortion which is far more distressing to experience when a 10 week old foetus is sucked out of you than a 72hr clump of cells? Should they be forced to give birth to an unwanted child? What do you tell the when it child grows up?

Cat was saying that the pharmacist in the USA should have honoured the prescription (I assume that you can't just buy an over the counter morning after pill there)

Thank you Teresa for the original link, it certainly makes for an interesting read and at least goes to show that the problem isn't just related to religious status in the UK.

I don't believe that any public pharmacy supplying the morning after pill should turn away anyone on a personal belief. Afterall events like this go to show that the woman could be asking for the pill for any number of reasons and not on any immoral grounds.

---

by Teresa
(quotes)

But what about women who don't report rapes 'cos they're too scared? Should they be denied the pill? Should they be forced to go through another trauma, to have an abortion which is far more distressing to experience when a 10 week old foetus is sucked out of you than a 72hr clump of cells? Should they be forced to give birth to an unwanted child? What do you tell the when it child grows up?

---

Thats the point of this case, the lady was raped, the doctor signed a prescriptipon, it needed to be filled!

Totally justified!

In the following case....

Like the lady who was refused the morning after pill by an ASDA pharmacist, I was refused the pill on the same grounds of religion and told where else to purchase it. The counter girl told me i could come back the next day, adding another 16 hours to a 20 hour delay.

This was in June 2001, when I was separated from my husband but had tried a reconciliation. The condom split and I knew I needed a pill; I was already a single mum because of my separation.

I was 31 years old but felt humiliated, I complained to the ASDA management but they said they couldn't stop the pharmacist refusing to sell something on religious grounds.

Unfortunately, there was such a delay in getting the Pill that I found myself pregnant anyway; my daughter will be 2 next week.

At the time I was distraught because I was single and the pregnancy ended any chance of reconciliation with my husband. I refused an abortion and he doesn't have anything to do with my daughter.

I hoped this would have been avoided for other women but it doesn't seem to have been rectified.

Deborah Powitt

1) "adding another 16 hours to a 20 hour delay." you have 72 hours in which to take the MA pill. 36 isnt out of the range by a long shot, not to mention she was told where else to try. the american lady actually had a prescription refused!

2) "Unfortunately, there was such a delay in getting the Pill that I found myself pregnant anyway; my daughter will be 2 next week."

Again, if three days (72 hours) and 52 hours (2 days and 4 hours) and after her original visit was too little time to revisit the pharmacy or visit another, she couln't have been too worried about another birth, could she?

---

by Samphirette
I don't believe that any public pharmacy supplying the morning after pill should turn away anyone on a personal belief. Afterall events like this go to show that the woman could be asking for the pill for any number of reasons and not on any immoral grounds.

---

But the UK lay also protects the religious. IE, you dont have to sell it as long as you provide alternative information.

Where's the harm in traveling another (say) 30 mins for the MA pill to save the soul (or his belief in his soul) of someone who truely believes he/she would rott in hell for selling it?

Religion isnt come as you are folks!

I'm not saying religion is "come as you go"

But on the USA link the company/pharmacy had a rule that said

---

Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

---

what I'm saying is it was a public pharmacy and ASDA for example should have had a pharmacist who was able to sell EVERY single one of their products available on every shift.

If it was a privately owned pharmacy then the rules would be different.

If he couldn't sell it personally (ie have to put his hands on it) then what about the pharmacy counter staff?


(Edited by Samphirette 14/02/2004 23:05)

---

by Cat
And i agree the pharmacist should have filled it/ he doesnt know better than a doctor.

---

So if the Doctor perscribes it you say the he should fill the perscription even if it's against his religious believes. But if something is there which you can get without a perscription (and normally there is a pretty good reason why you can get it without a perscription) he should just follow his religious believes and not serve you?

Whats than the value of your religious believes? You should be consitant either way. As far as I'm aware the doctor isn't a higher power than God in a religion.

If this woman walked into the store and asked for the morning after pill and had a doctors degree? She is a doctor so she knows better than the pharmacist....

If you make a choice you have to make a consitant one. So that means that you also shouldn't fill perscriptions of Doctors. Which you just said they should because the doctor knows best. See the dilemma here?

So the only consitant choice you can make here is say no I don't want to sell these products at all and therefor I'm not fit to be a pharmacist as this means that i'm not able to fill certain perscriptions.

Or yes I sell them and fill all perscriptions and keep my religious believes out of my job and don't force them on anyone else while I'm at work. And if I can't handle that find another job.

(Edited by Chambler 14/02/2004 23:08)

---

by Cat
(quotes)
Where's the harm in traveling another (say) 30 mins for the MA pill to save the soul (or his belief in his soul) of someone who truely believes he/she would rott in hell for selling it?

---

Uhmm well if I truely believed I would rott in hell for doing something I would choose a profession where I would never (or atleast mostly avoid) situation where I might be brought into such a situation.

Luke 11:4 "And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."


(Edited by Chambler 14/02/2004 23:16)

---

by Samph
what I'm saying is it was a public pharmacy and ASDA for example should have had a pharmacist who was able to sell EVERY single one of their products available on every shift.

---

But the UK law is that a pharmacist doesnt have to dispence anything against his religion unless it's by precpriprion. his refusal only applies to over the counter drugs.

---

by Sampf
If it was a privately owned pharmacy then the rules would be different

---

NO, same law. over counter, own choice, firing someone for not dispencing is illegal. not dispencing a prescription, illegal.

---

by Chambler
So if the Doctor perscribes it you say the he should fill the perscription even if it's against his religious believes. But if something is there which you can get without a perscription (and normally there is a pretty good reason why you can get it without a perscription) he should just follow his religious believes and not serve you?

---

Basically yes. Doctors can precscribe for many conditions that pharmacists dont know of. For example, a person whth a history of ectopic pregnancies that would kill her. no religion (well, westernised religion) would deny her ther MA pill or abortion if not caught early enough. same with rape.

If the pharmacist still disssgreed they could tell her to come back later (as i have been many times for prescriptions that were not in stock. Maybe it was against their beliefs and they needed someone else to fill it. i dont know, but i never took it personally)

---

by Chambler
If this woman walked into the store and asked for the morning after pill and had a doctors degree? She is a doctor so she knows better than the pharmacist....

---

Anyone who is his own doctor is a fool, anyone who is his own lawyer is an idiot (or something similar).

But if the Dr (medical Dr) in question is able to write their own prescription, then yes, it should be filled. her knowledge took 4 extra years to gain (unless the pharmacologist has a PhD, then 1 extra year but most pharmacology PhD's work in research, not in pharmacies)

---

by Chambler
If you make a choice you have to make a consitant one. So that means that you also shouldn't fill perscriptions of Doctors. Which you just said they should because the doctor knows best. See the dilemma here?

---

In religious theological terms this takes the decision out of the pharmacists hands. It's the best course of action for the woman, the reasons of which the pharmacist doesnt know.

I that case, the law should be changed, because if I wanted to buy something that was available to me, I wouldn't want the company I was taking *MY* business to when they hold it in stock to refuse to sell it to me.

If they don't want to sell it, they shouldn't be holding it in stock.

Why should people be made subject to someone else's religious beliefs?

---

by Cat
(quotes)
In religious theological terms this takes the decision out of the pharmacists hands. It's the best course of action for the woman, the reasons of which the pharmacist doesnt know.

---

Sorry I think you got it wrong there. The choice is very simple and the pharmesict if free to make it. Consequences are however aren't nice:
- Don't fill perscriptions etc and get fired.
- Have your soul burn in hell for all eternity

Every well thinking religious person would of course choose for option 1.

Matthew chapter 5:
8. Blessed are the pure in heart:for they shall see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers:for they shall be called the children of God.
10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake:for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad:for great is your reward in heaven:for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Nobody said that following a religion was easy
You can't only get the perks.

(Edited by Chambler 14/02/2004 23:46)

All good points.

Personally i'd have no problem with dispencing the MA pill, I'd rather 100 babies/potential babies were aborted than 1 unwanted baby born. But the law protects religion and the right to practice it.

This law is a new law and many pharmacisits were already employed before it came into practice. If you want the goverment to pass a law to fire the religious who refuse service (or say come back the next day) regardless of a prescription, you go to your local MP and get a petition going. Talking here wont change things so if you feel that strongly, take action.

I wont sign it though becaus the goverment have changed the goal posts for these peoeple. They deserve to honour their beliefs (and, Chambler, i think you'll find in most commercial - ie non private/chain/supermarket - pharmacies, the 2'nd pharmacist woudld fill the prescription in most cases. only 1 might be on duty but to cover weekends there has to be 2 employed).

I'm not going to go on one, did that last time, I just think that if they are aware that this guy will not supply anyone with the morning after pill then surely there must be SOMEONE else in asda able to serve the woman. I dont see why she should go elsewhere when she was perfectly entitled to buy it there and then.

Isn't it true that the efficiency of the pill diminishes thelonger you wait to take it?? Thats what I read somewhere anyway!

I dont think that anyone should impose their religious views on anyone else and in this case, and the case in America that's exactly what happened. The case in America is more severe as the woman was a rape victim but who are we to say that because the woman in the UK wasn't raped it doesn't matter as much?? No-one should be forced to have an unwanted pregnancy and it just happens that luckily the woman was well within the 72 hours so she could go somewhere else to receive the MA pill!

Its nearly 4.30am so i'm not making a whole lot of sense and also i said i wouldn't go on one yet here i am! so i'll shut up and go away now! xx

I experience a very watered down version of the same phenomona, I was actually refused over the counter Anti-nausea mediaction by a pharmacist!

I dont know whether they have some other 'narcotic' use and she wouldnt serve a young man 'just in case', but I had an older family member go in afterwards and purchased them easily.

You have to wonder what judgements these pharmacists are making of the people they serve.

---

by Eve
I'm not going to go on one, did that last time, I just think that if they are aware that this guy will not supply anyone with the morning after pill then surely there must be SOMEONE else in asda able to serve the woman.

---

Despite medications broadly being labled over the counter, or prescription, there is actually a 3 tier system as I discovered.

Of the 'over the counter' medications, many i belive can ONLY be sold under the advisement of a pharmacist. As I recall the first time i went to buy my nausea mediaction I was told I COULDNT physically be sold any as the pharmacist wasnt there, and the second time, it was because the pharmacist wouldnt sell any to me.


(Edited by Wobag 15/02/2004 13:15)

Found this:

The morning-after pill





The morning-after pill needs to be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.


The morning-after pill is the most common type of emergency contraception, and it has become very widely used since being made available over the counter in Britain in 2001.

It should really be called 'the postcoital pill' or 'PCP' - because it's not just for morning-after use. In fact you can take it any time up to 72 hours after unprotected sex.


The PCP is also of immense value in cases of rape. Any woman who has been raped should definitely be offered this treatment as soon as possible.

Early in 2001, the UK introduced an 'over-the-counter' version of this, called 'Levonelle'. You can get it from any chemist - unless the pharmacist has any moral objections. However, it can only be sold as an over-the-counter product to women who are 16 years of age and older. The pharmacy are obliged to offer you brief counselling about the PCP and its possible side effects before handing it over. The cost to you is currently £24.


--------------------------------
Taken from net doctor:

www.netdoctor.co.uk

--------------------------------

And yes it IS better taking the morning after pill as soon as possible. It used to be doc's appt not buying straight over counter and that gives you less time and makes you panic more (trust me been there)........





(Edited by Soupdragon 15/02/2004 16:30)

(Edited by Soupdragon 15/02/2004 16:40)

What is intresting is that the pharmacist in question chooses to work in a store that even sells the Morning after pill, condoms, the pill and various other birth controls, If the pharmacist is that relegious surely being in the same room as them would abhorrent to them.

The difference JtB is that the pill (regular kind), condoms, femidoms etc etc are designed to prevent conception. Many religions can accept this, if not agree.

the Morning After Pill is designed (whether firtilisation has occured or not) to abort an embrio.

It's like selling a gun, it might not be used to kill, but thats what it was designed for. This is just on a smaller scale, biologically speaking.

Wo, i've never heard of anti-nausea medication being refused! Maybe you just looked shifty