Hat tip to Sarah for her email pointing me in the direction of this obscured piece of news.
In short: on advice from her GP, woman goes to local chemist for morning after pill (EC). Pharmacist declines to supply said medication because “it was against his religious beliefs” and refers woman back to her GP, so wasting valuable time (evidence BB).
WTF?
Apparently:
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s code allows a pharmacist to refuse to sell or dispense drugs because of their religious or moral beliefs.
Why? Why do the ‘religious or moral beliefs’ of some bloke (in this case) just doing his job take precedence over the medical needs of the customer? Why have the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain adopted such delusions of grandeur that its members can yay or nay treatment people need in this way?
The morning after pill is legal here. It is legal to seek, prescribe and dispense. If any pharmacist doesn’t agree with that then maybe they should seek alternative employment rather than impose their religious or moral beliefs on strangers who are legitimately seeking something they need and that they’re legally entitled to. Maybe the Royal Pharmaceutical Society need to re-evaluate their raison d’être in consideration of the law and the rights of women. Or maybe chemists throughout the land should boycot (girlcot?) RPS members while this patriarchial misogyny is allowable by its members.
This is so totally wrong, so very American, and we need to be doing something about it NOW before BB’s dilemma becomes commonplace here.
27 responses so far ↓
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Mad Pharmacist Disease crosses the pond to Britain // October 14, 2006 at 3:22 am |
[...] Witchy limns this shocking news item from South Yorkshire: In short: on advice from her GP, woman goes to local chemist for morning after pill (EC). Pharmacist declines to supply said medication because “it was against his religious beliefs” and refers woman back to her GP, so wasting valuable time (evidence BB). [...]
Y. Carrington // October 14, 2006 at 4:03 am |
“So totally wrong, so very American.” If that ain’t the truth.
Fey Hag // October 14, 2006 at 6:36 am |
Get out there, ticket the bastards.
Put small signs up that let other women know not to waste their time on these pricks.
Put small good signs for other women on the places that comply with the law. Young women in need do not need this Shite.
Pony // October 14, 2006 at 7:06 am |
I commented on this on Violet’s blog. I’ll just say here that I’ve come to the conclusion they aren’t pissed because some 19 year old is getting it on. No. It’s because she isn’t doing them.
Seriously, I’ve done a survey, apropos a study. N of about 6. Pharmacists are Christian. Or Mormon. Really.
whiztle // October 14, 2006 at 10:04 am |
I wonder how many other types of drugs are being refused. Is it just birth control?
bookdrunk // October 14, 2006 at 11:31 am |
I tracked down the code of ethics on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society website – and the detail is not encouraging. You can find the document here, and I’ve posted about it here.
stormcloud // October 14, 2006 at 1:18 pm |
Thanks for the heads up Witchy, I cannot believe that we follow America YET AGAIN.
Fuck the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Morals my arse. Get your fucking moral noses out of my* uterus. (*any woman’s)
No uterus. No right to impose ‘moral’ judgement.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 14, 2006 at 2:42 pm |
It may be a bit harsh but if the bloke has such serious objections to a part of his job then maybe he is in the wrong job?
sparklematrix // October 14, 2006 at 4:41 pm |
Maybe they can start sticking their morality nose, anywhere they want in medicine. Stop giving heroin addicts a Methadone programme, because they do not *believe* in addictions. Oh, my! The list is endless, but it is easy to start with women’s reproductive rights. As a former actor in the Health Service Show, Medicine is one of the biggest well-oiled patriarchal machines that there is, BLAH!
Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Feminists Can Too Be Funny // October 14, 2006 at 4:44 pm |
[...] U.K. feminist blogger Witchy-woo wrote about a woman in England who was unable to obtain the “morning after” pill because her pharmacist declined to provide it, asserting that “it was against his religious beliefs.” Her post is at her blog: Well I’ll go to the foot of my stairs. Nothing funny so far, of course. The amusing part is the account of this Dr. Violet Socks gives at Reclusive Leftist: They gave us Mad Cow Disease; now we’re giving them Mad Pharmacist Disease. [...]
Ethically Speaking :: Denied the morning after pill :: October :: 2006 // October 14, 2006 at 4:53 pm |
[...] I sent this to Witchy Woo. Witchy, as usual, made a lot of sense with it and set me thinking. [...]
hippie // October 14, 2006 at 5:49 pm |
This happened in Boots in Sheffield a year or two ago too. The woman complained and I believe they eventually found someone who would serve her and quite a fuss was kicked up.
Bloody outrageous that it’s happened again – and we can also deduce that these two incidents aren’t the only ones.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 14, 2006 at 6:13 pm |
Absolutely. These are the ones who complained, the ones who got vocal. And in a week where nothing else happened in the news.
Michelle // October 14, 2006 at 7:17 pm |
I posted about a similar thing a week or so ago, (http://lonergrrrl.blogspot.com/2006/09/ranty-response-to-some-pro-life-bs-ive.html) this time a pro-life organisation campaigning for the rights of doctors and nurses who oppose abortion to not have to be “compromised” by treating women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies. Just like in the case of EC here, the so-called morals of men take precedence without any thought for the woman’s right to control her own life.
Another thing- I notice that the EC incident was perhaps reported not because it is an attack on women’s rights, but as yet another example of how Muslim beliefs differ from Western ones and the detrimental consequences faced by Westerners because of this. Conservative British media have jumped on this story to frame another Muslim vs Western opposition, when really it should be being discussed in terms of what it really is: the patriarchy oppressing women, something that crosses all boundaries of religion and race.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // October 14, 2006 at 8:13 pm |
I caught that too. What does the bloke’s religion have to do with it? He cited religous AND moral objections. Doesn’t really matter which religion it was in my view.
simplywondered // October 14, 2006 at 11:08 pm |
here I was getting all misty-eyed about Britain as I boiled at BB’s predicament and of course it turns out to happen here. Why would it not? It’s not as if women are oppressed in the US and not here. Just annoyed with myself for assuming ‘it couldn’t happen here’.
The poor conflicted religious medical practicioners can go and find a job they can actually do without inflicting their views on others, whether they call them religious or moral (just because one type of bigotry comes without the kicker of superstition doesn’t make it any nicer).
I know the prime focus for this seems to be women, but plenty of medical people feel qualified to make all kinds of moral decisions about all kinds of patients. We have put doctors on a pedestal and it’s bad for us and them.
stormcloud // October 15, 2006 at 12:23 am |
So what are we going to DO about it?
Letter writing to Royal Pharma Soc?
witchywoo // October 15, 2006 at 12:45 am |
Sounds good to me.
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
1 Lambeth High Street
London
SE1 7JN
stormcloud // October 15, 2006 at 1:45 pm |
Witchy, I will add to that address,
I have found more specific details here:
http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/protectingthepublic/ethics/
Lynsey Balmer
Head of Professional Ethics
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
(I am just about to read the code.)
witchywoo // October 15, 2006 at 2:04 pm |
Nice one Stormy. Thanks
stormcloud // October 15, 2006 at 2:11 pm |
In skimming the Code document:
http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/coe060524.pdf
There is emphasis on:
“At all times pharmacists must act in the interests of patients..”
which is repeated a few times near the beginning of the document.
The key section dealing with EC is on page 11, point number 11:
“11. The supply of emergency hormonal contraception as a pharmacy medicine
Pharmacists in personal control of a pharmacy must ensure that the following standards are
observed in the supply of emergency hormonal contraception as a pharmacy medicine. As with all medicines pharmacists must have sufficient knowledge of the product to enable them to make an informed decision when requests are made.
(a) Pharmacists must deal with the request personally and decide whether to supply the product or make a referral to an appropriate health care professional.
(b) Pharmacists must ensure that all necessary advice and information is provided to enable the patient to assess whether to use the product.
(c) Requests for emergency hormonal contraception must be handled sensitively with due regard being given to the patient’s right to privacy.
(d) Only in exceptional circumstances should pharmacists supply the product to a person other than the patient.
(e) Pharmacists should whenever possible take reasonable measures to inform patients of regular methods of contraception, disease prevention and sources of help.”
It is NOT evident to me, within that section that EC can be refused on moral or religious grounds, nor could I find any opt-out within the document on moral or religious grounds, however, that is not to say that the RPSGB have opt-out religo clauses embedded elsewhere in a dusty mound of documents.
It could be a factor (in this case) of ‘individual interpretation’ or this particular individual skewing the guidelines to suit himself (the part about referrals is NOT about religo stuff, but probably written within the ’spirit’ of concern over patient health). (Ms Sparkle has nursing background, she is probably better informed in these areas.)
So, it may still be a case of contacting the RPSGB to find out WHY this jerk gave the woman the run around, and whether or not the Society do indeed have a religious nutter’s clause.
Thoughts?
hippie // October 15, 2006 at 5:30 pm |
That’s really good research and, like you, I can’t find their get-out clause in there either.
I really agree with Sarah also that a lot of women who were refused EC would be unlikely to complain, and even less likely to the media, because we know what patriarchal society thinks of women who have sex, especially if they are then trying to avoid pregnancy!
Fletch // October 15, 2006 at 10:33 pm |
I too have been following BB’s recent predicament and felt comfortably reassured that, at least here in the UK one can get hold of a simple, effective treatment to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
However, when my GF showed me the above post by Witchywoo I was filled with a mixture of astonishment and red rage.
I mean the very fact that in a modern, supposedly progressive “1st World” country we even take “Religious” beliefs into account with regards to medical conditions and practices (i.e. how often do Consultant Oncologists suggest we “Pray to a Deity” to assist in our treatment of Cancer?).
But more importantly, let’s take a brief look at the (very) approximate dates of establishment of the several major Religions and the date that the Hormonal EC came into use:
Hinduism – 2000 BCE
Judaism – 1500 BCE
Christianity – 1 AD
Islam – 600 AD
Sikhism – 1500 AD
Emergency Contraception – 1975 AD
As we can see, there is a gap of at least 400 years between the creation of the EC and the establishment of the most recent of these religions. So the various Prophets must have been very prophetic indeed to be able to predict that 400 years later there would be a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and then to subsequently ban the use thereof.
I agree with Stormcloud, something must be done. I used to work for a PCT (Primary Care Trust), all areas in England have one, and they monitor and regulate GPs, Dentists, Opticians and Pharmacists. It may be useful to contact your local PCT to find out whether they have a policy on this matter (or to find out if they even realise it is happening).
http://www.nhs.uk/England/AuthoritiesTrusts/Pct/list.aspx
Let’s see what we can do!
Fletch
The Wo! Front » Blogworld // October 16, 2006 at 3:16 am |
[...] Tia from Unfogged wrote a very useful post a couple of months back that sets out guidelines for how men should interact with feminists if they enter into a discussion with us. I kept the link in case I came across any of those feminist haters that lurk around discussion boards on feminism and bait or come up with arguments (or insults) we’ve heard a million times. For example, “Stop complaining, at least you’re not in Afghanistan and have to wear a burqua”, “You feminists are all ugly manhaters who can’t get laid”, “men have problems too” etc etc. I’ve alread linked to this in another post. But see what happens if pharmacists and doctors are allowed to put their personal beliefs above patient care. I’m not sure if this is allowed in Australia (it’s only been recently that the Morning After Pill has been available over the counter here) but it’s happening in the UK too more on this instance here. Now one thing I’ve wondered, if is this would be allowed if it wasn’t only affecting those who want the Morning After Pill/ Emergency Contraception. For example, what if a catholic pharmacist refused to sell condoms, would that be okay? And if a catholic pharmacist sold condoms, is there a hypocrisy clause that one can evoke when faced with a refusal to fill an EC prescription or sell it over the counter? Can anyone else think of any religious practices, or general “morality” beliefs, which could interfere with patient care that wouldn’t be allowed if the law was uniform and not just applicable to women? Also, here’s a related post rallying the US blogosphere to action around this issue- a fundraiser drive for those who want but can’t afford abortions. [...]
stormcloud // October 17, 2006 at 1:32 pm |
I have emailed the Head of Ethics, Lynsey Balmer, to get clarification on the matter.
I shall report back here with the response.
I was having some ISP problems yesterday, so the email went out today.
USA - here we come! « A stormy blog // October 17, 2006 at 3:13 pm |
[...] This post is a follow up on a thread at Witchy’s “Brits, be warned…” (and first found by Sarah ”Denied the morning after pill“) regarding a woman in Britain who was refused the supply of Emergency Contraception (EC). [...]
stormcloud // October 17, 2006 at 3:14 pm |
Witchy, it was all a bit too long for the comments section here, so I blogged it!