Pharmacists across the UK have been told they can continue to refuse to prescribe items that might clash with their personal religious beliefs.
A revised code of conduct from the new industry regulator will allow staff to opt out of providing items such as the morning-after pill and contraception.
But they may in future have to give customers details of alternative shops.
The National Secular Society wanted the General Pharmaceutical Council to scrap the so-called conscience clause.
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) is to take over the regulation of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and the registration of pharmacy premises from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society later this year.
Under its new code, pharmacists with strong religious principles will still be able to continue to refuse to sell or prescribe products if they feel that doing so would contradict their beliefs.
Tags: Christianity, News, Science & Medical
March 25th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
It’s a curious story. Just why does the NSS want to force a small shop-keeper to sell particular items? Merely because they know it would be against his religion? Yuk, if so.
Since when did a trader have to stock particular lines of merchandise, at the demand of a pressure group? The very idea of making the demand could only occur to someone in an unfree society.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
This is essentially about contraceptive services and the morning after pill. In most cases there are many pharmacies in an area so the refusal by one pharmacist to dispense contraceptive pills or devices does not impact on individuals apart from the distress caused by a refusal, and this can be avoided by good management. In isolated areas I suspect the situation would not arise. From reading the news article in full it seems that pharmacists who will not deal with contraception will have to provide people with details of an alternative source.
The comments on the BBC web site from pharmacists are interesting. One Muslim pharmacist points out that were he to refuse to dispense anything with alcohol in it this would make his professional life very difficult, and slow.
I imagine many pharmacies would be unwilling to employ someone who put religious belief before their primary ethical duty to their patients. I certainly would not want to consult one.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
This is essentially about contraceptive services and the morning after pill. In most cases there are many pharmacies in an area so the refusal by one pharmacist to dispense contraceptive pills or devices does not impact on individuals apart from the distress caused by a refusal, and this can be avoided by good management. In isolated areas I suspect the situation would not arise. From reading the news article in full it seems that pharmacists who will not deal with contraception will have to provide people with details of an alternative source.
The comments on the BBC web site from pharmacists are interesting. One Muslim pharmacist points out that were he to refuse to dispense anything with alcohol in it this would make his professional life very difficult, and slow.
I imagine many pharmacies would be unwilling to employ someone who put religious belief before their primary ethical duty to their patients. I certainly would not want to consult one.
I would point out to Roger Pearse that pharmacists are not just traders, and would be very offended to be so described. They are health professionals and already subject to a very large number of regulations about what they may and may dispense.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
I can certainly understand your desire that people you do business with should follow your own beliefs, religious or otherwise, and accept your own principles.
But surely we should all consider that not everyone shares our beliefs? Is there some reason why those who disagree may not be heard? The idea that only people sharing one’s own views are “health professionals” and failing in their “primary ethical duty” seems a little narrow-minded to me. It is not the contraceptive generation — which is what we are talking about — who are noted for the high moral principles and selfless self-denial, after all! Unless we didn’t notice the bankers and politicians we live under?
Also… do we really believe that people without principles are ethically better than those who are? Would we wish to be treated by Mengele, on that argument the best and most ethical doctor? Surely not. So we mean only “those with principles I agree with”, which is once again not exactly an argument.
Incidentally I do know that Moslem practioners cause all sorts of problems for the rest of us. That’s why they’ve been brought in, of course. But to introduce them is simply to sow confusion into a simple argument. Is it the job of officials to force businessmen to sell contraceptives and poisons to kill newly conceived babies? And no, I don’t see that it is my duty or yours to force a Moslem to sell alcohol.
We have to look beyond the slogans to the realities. We all tend to the same idea. If you believe the state is run along lines you agree with, of course you are in favour of officials enforcing it. But to take that to the stage of actual persecution of dissenters? Not me, thanks.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:02 am
Roger Pearse, though you seem unfamiliar with the expression, the term “health professionals” is commonly used to designate all those professions who advise or treat patients. Doctors, for example, are health professionals. There is no approval or disapproval involved. It’s just a description.
Your rather bizarre reading of this common term then leads to some even more bizarre conclusions. Calling the vast majority of the population a “pressure group” for one!
You wrote: “Since when did a trader have to stock particular lines of merchandise, at the demand of a pressure group?”
In response to which I was simply making the (not very controversial) point that, as health professionals, pharmacists are already subject to umpteen regulations as well as their profession’s code of practice, NHS rules, etc. A pharmacist who breaches these may be struck off, in the same way that a doctor might be.
Anyone can set up a shop. Not so a pharmacy. Only a qualified pharmacist can dispense prescriptions. To describe pharmacists as just small shop-keepers or traders is misleading.
On the other hand, I suppose it is normal business practice to supply what your best customer requires, particularly when this customer supplies pretty much all of your dispensing income. The customer in this case is, of course, the NHS. A pharmacist who refused to deal with NHS scripts would have slim pickings indeed.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Thanks for reitering your claims in a longer form. You will find that you case is taken rather more seriously if you demonstrate the ability to read responses, as well as write them.
As I remarked, while you may imagine that only those sharing your religious or personal beliefs are competent, such a claim is pretty bigoted and quite unacceptable.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Roger Pearse Says “As I remarked, while you may imagine that only those sharing your religious or personal beliefs are competent, such a claim is pretty bigoted and quite unacceptable.”
I’m glad you see that, though I find your admission a bit of a surprise.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I would imagine that the world is full of surprises to you.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Roger,
Could I ask what your reaction would be if you were granted the power to prevent the sale of contraceptives, including morning after pills, at Pharmacies?
March 26th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
It would depend entirely on whether I could get a job on the board of British Rubber first, and whether I could think of a way to thereby create a monopoly for my company. Simples!
Seriously, I don’t see the connection of this with my post. If the question is, more generally, when should a society pass laws to prevent things well… you tell me. What do you think the rules should be, specific cases aside? Or should it merely be that whatever the Selfish Generation want should happen?
March 26th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Apologies Roger. I misread an earlier post. Ignore my question.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
No hassle.:)
March 29th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
@ Roger Pearse: Healthcare professionals have always been able to refuse to deal with contraception, for example, if this is forbidden by their religion. This would apply to a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist. The sharp end of this is, of course, in the provision of abortion and it has always been clear that those with moral objections need not take part.
Interestingly, I do not think any British pharmacist has claimed that their Muslim beliefs exclude them from dispensing products containing alcohol, a not uncommon ingredient in pharmaceuticals. I find your comment “I do know that Moslem practioners cause all sorts of problems for the rest of us. That’s why they’ve been brought in, of course” is offensive and bizarre.
With regard to contraception, a pharmacist who expressed condemnation (whether in religious or moral terms) of a patient’s request would be in big trouble. Any refusal should be made in the most general and least offensive terms. Pharmacists can refuse to dispense contraception but I believe they’re obliged to offer patients an alternative pharmacy address where the prescription can be obtained.
In real life, arrangements are made so that patients are never actually physically refused. A pharmacist known not to dispense contraception might, for example, work mainly in the dispensary in a large shop so that he or she would never have to actually have contact with patients over such matters.
I imagine that holding such beliefs, though they’re legal and I agree that they should be legal, is unlikely to make you most people’s first choice as an employee. How many families would use a GP who disapproved of contraception, for example? Certainly not anyone I know, including the Catholics.
I think there’s much to be said for the idea that doctors, nurses and pharmacists should put the needs of their patients first and that personal beliefs shouldn’t come into it. Growing up in a medical family, I saw a lot of ethics in action.
I take exception to the idea that contraception is selfish, Roger. Selfishness is *not* using contraception. Selfishness is having children you can’t care for properly.
There’s also the point that contraception and abortion are not condemned by all Christians. Many are pro-choice and nearly all use family planning, so I can’t see an attack on Christianity in this story.
I understand your point about freedom but I also see that economics makes some beliefs very expensive. A single-handed pharmacist who refused to stock or dispense contraceptives would, I imagine, go broke fairly rapidly. The only way an individual can sustain this position is as part of a large team and they would have to rely on the goodwill and respect of their colleagues who undertook the tasks they refused.