Morning:
8°c
With a single dessert and just two glasses of wine our bill was kept in check - but the effort of doing so was not much fun
Latest: Gordon Brown apologises for his poor handwriting and for misspelling the name of a dead soldier in a letter to the young man’s mother
More...
Muslim pharmacist refuses to give morning after pill 'on religious grounds'
Last updated at 23:52pm on 13.10.06
Jo-Ann Thomas was shocked when she was refused the morning after pill by a Muslim pharmacist
Worried mum Jo-Ann Thomas was left stunned when Muslim pharmacist refused her a morning after pill on religious grounds.
Jo-Ann, aged 37, a school lollipop lady, went to her local chemist but when she asked for the pill she was told she would have to speak to the pharmacist.
See also:
• Christian BA employee suspended for wearing cross necklace
She was told she would be quizzed by the pharmacist - described by staff as a "deeply religious Muslim" who would ask her a few questions.
But after waiting for several minutes another assistant told Jo-Ann her: "Sorry I can't give you the pill, why don't you go to your GP."
When she asked repeatedly she was told the chemist stocked the drug but the pharmacist had refused to sell it to her.
Mum of two Jo-Ann from Thurcroft, Rotherhamm said: "I asked why I couldn't have the pill and the assistant went bright red and after a pause said ' I can't tell you'."
I said: "I want to know why and she said 'don't say anything to anyone - it's because of his religion'."
I just stared at her with my mouth open.
"I asked for the pill because you have to take it within 72 hours and this was now 36 hours. I don't want to increase my family and this was an accident so I needed to take the pill. In the end I had to go to the doctor's surgery."
"I was angry because he is a dispensing chemist and it is his job to dispense drugs. If he can't do that on religious grounds then perhaps he should not be in the profession."
The row flared up when Jo-Ann called at her local branch of Lloyd's Pharmacy in Green Arbour Road, Thurcroft.
She said: "This is a perfectly legal drug but there is a man introducing his own laws. It cannot be right that he can pick and choose the drugs he sells."
"I am a 37-year-old woman and not a daft girl who does not know what she is doing. And the chemist has no right to tell me whether I can or can't take the pill. It's my choice not his. It his his religion not mine."
"How many young girls has he turned away who need the pill? If they are his views why didn't he come and face me and tell me. The chemist staff were trying to cover up for him and were embarrassed."
The pharmacists and staff at the pharmacy refused to comment but Dr John Radford, Rotherham's Director of Public Health said: "Pharmacists do have the right to use their discretion in selling over the counter drugs. These drugs will be stocked by the pharmacy to be supplied when a prescription is written by a doctor."
"Any pharmacy refusing to sell a drug has a duty to provide the customer with information as to where they can obtain it including over the counter at an alternative pharmacy or via their GP or practice nurse on prescription."
A spokesman for Lloyd's which operates 1,300 pharmacies across the country said : "We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the customer."
"However, a pharmacist's personal decision to refuse to supply the morning after pill is an issue for the community pharmacy as a whole."
"The code of ethics put in place by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists via a conscience clause the right to refuse."
"The code states that if supplying the morning after pill is contrary to a pharmacist's personal religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it."
A member of staff at the pharmacy said: "The regular pharmacist is on holiday for two weeks and we have been told not to comment. I cannot say if we would sell the morning after pill over the counter today."
Reader views (16)
There is no need for him to try another professional because code of ethics does give him power to go according to his beliefs so there is no point to argue about it. I think he is right.
- Sono, manchester, didsbury
I wonder why every situation concerning a "muslim" turns out to be a GLOBAL MATTER of concern, besides killing a 'life' is not permitted in any religion. doing something wrong in the "good" way doesn't make it lawfull.
- Alawi, Uganda, Kampala
the same thing happened to me.My own doctor refused me the pill and actually was quite frank about it being totally wrong to do this and it was killing a life.I was so upset and it actually makes you feel terrible.Well i certainly did anyway
- Michelle, england
A pharmacist is a highly trained professional, they know what they are doing and are more than entitled to refuse to dispense a drug if they feel it is immoral to do so. It is completely irrational to suggest a pharmacist could be forced to do something which goes against their core beliefs - this is a democracy right?
- Sarah, Ireland
If your beliefs prevent you from doing your job properly, you don't choose that job; it is as simple as that.
You can't take the money and the status associated with the job but then just pick and choose your duties. In the past I've chosen not to do jobs that conflict too much with my moral beliefs. I suppose professionals get to be picky while the rest of us have to do as we're told!
I am amazed that the right to refuse is allowed with medication that has to be taken within a certain time limit, it's not a problem in London but imagine if this had happened in a rural area where the next pharmacy is miles away!
- Lucy, Hemel Hempstead, UK
Interesting pattern coming up in the comments section - though this can hardly be said to be very demonstrative, why are all the US and Canadian citizens so defensive of the Lloyd's pharmacist in question?
The very same thing happened to me a couple of years ago at a Boot's Pharmacy in London: I was refused the morning after pill and was not told on what grounds, though it was easy to guess.
No-one should impose their beliefs on others. Jo-Anne Thomas had the right to ask (and be given) the morning-after pill, and so was I. Who is everyone else to judge why we were asking for it? The reasons for needing it are unlimited.
For those firmly against the morning-after-pill, is it better to give birth to a child who will ultimately be unhappy in life, and not be given the circumstances he/she has a right to? There is no right or wrong, so don't impose what you think is right and wrong. Please get off that high, high horse.
- A Hackett, London, UK
The arguments about personal beliefs and religion are ridiculous in this case. The problem is the objective truth. The pharmacist knows well that the morning after pill is killing the baby inside the mother's womb (what else would be growing there?). The mother, especially after bearing two other children, should also know that it is a baby. And even more should a doctor know. Once it was considered the greatest feminine virtue to defend and protect the weakest. It does not have anything to do with any religion. What happened to us in 2006 that the mother turns against the weakest of her children?
- Francisco Blazek, Canada
Religious beliefs aside...
The morning after pill does NOT PREVENT conception, but stops it AFTER the child has already been conceived.
Conceiving a child isn't an accident, as she said, but she made the choice in the first place to be put in that situation. She knew the consequences, so how about not having sex in the first place?
The pharmacist was right in refusing her the pill, not only for himself, but for the good of that woman and her child.
- Jamie, California
I'm a 30 year old woman and I hail this pharmacist for standing up for his right of conscience. If this pharmacist believes that prescribing the morning after pill is a direct participation on his part in killing a newly created human life then that is his right with the code of ethics law in the UK to do so, regardless of what any of us think. What right do we have to force him to be a participant in what he believes is murder? We have always allowed doctors and others in the medical field to have discretion on what procedures, etc they perform for their patients. Should we force all gynecologists and other doctors that don't want to have anything to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide to always provide these services should anyone ask or otherwise get out of the business? Absolutely not! The people that want these services can go elsewhere. It's about time the medical profession started standing up for their "conscience clause" rights.
- Melissa, Maryland, USA
Its funny that Andy says it's important to respect others belief and then goes on to say the pharmacist should be forced to go against her faith amd to sell the morning after pill to the women in the article. Who is forcing who's beliefs on whom? This is not a matter that jeprodizes the women's health. I also find it difficult that this women just couldn't go to another pharmacy to get the pills. As for getting another job, why should she? She has the skills and ablities, the education etc. Why should she need to get another job? Is it right to discriminate against her because of her faith? It seems that narrow minded people are unwilling to think their ideas through.
- Tom, Canada
Thank God for people like this pharmacist. This woman was asking him to be an accomplice in the murder of her child. That hardly compares to burgers or condoms!
Get real.
- Bette Turnbull, Bayfield, ON Canada
Does this mean catholic pharmacists can refuse to sell me condoms?
Should we really be allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell people medication that they require just because of their own beliefs?
I think it's very important that we respect each other's beliefs, but this is a clear case of someone forcing their beliefs on to another person.
If this mans beliefs clash with the requirements of his job and put people who require medication in a disadvantaged position then he should not be doing that job and should resign.
Refusal to supply a drug that is required to be taken as soon as possible becuase of his own beliefs, not law, not a medical decision or a suspision that the woman would abuse it in some way, is disgraceful.
Should we really be putting someone's personal beliefs before somebody else's medical requirements?
- Andy Moore, Sheffield UK
I thought that pharmacists should act in the best interests of the customer, not themselves. If they find themselves being put in the position where they are asked to do things that are against their faith, they should try another profession.
Don't people realise that the acceptance of actions like this only fuel racial hatred.
- James, Birmingham, UK
Ridiculous. If you're not prepared to do everything a job demands of you, maybe you should find a different job. Would a vegan McDonald's employee still have their job if they refused to sell burgers because it "violated their moral beliefs"? Would a travel agent who felt that air travel was too damaging to the environment still be in a job if they refused to sell plane tickets? I don't think so! If you want to practise your religious or moral beliefs then fine, but why should you be allowed to let your choices dictate what mine should be?
- Leah, Bath, UK
I applaud the man for voting with his conscience, as it were, but I have to wonder would the Royal Pharmaceutical Society be as tolerant if the man were a Christian who said that it violated his religious beliefs? From the climate I've seen around the world lately, I'd have to guess that would be a firm "NO!" A pat on the back to you, sir, for doing the right thing and a prayer for the mom who would, already having two children, knowingly murder a third.
- Karen, Bartlesville, OK USA
The pharmacist should be able to practice according to his beliefs.
- Pat, Rochester, USA
