Denied the morning after pill
I sent this to Witchy Woo. Witchy, as usual, made a lot of sense with it and set me thinking.
OK, so the pharmacist was:
acting within his rights under an industry code of ethics.
Now on the one hand there is the anger and outrage at the denial to a woman of control of her body. The family doctor had advised the woman in the article to go to the chemist and pick up an over the counter morning after pill. The pharmacist refused…
because it was against his religious beliefs.
He happens to be Muslim. I don’t think that has any relevance here to be honest. A pro life Christian could easily say the same thing. To my mind a pharmacist has a duty of care, just as a doctor or nurse has. They are part of the medical profession. The morning after pill is a medicine they provide, like paracetamol. Not that I am equating the MAP with taking a paracetamol for a headache - just that they are both products available from a chemist.
Then I got to pondering my own working experiences. I used to work in a record shop. A Virgin Megastore. I found having to serve customers with adult videos and dvd’s uncomfortable. Note - I wasn’t aware enough or angry enough to challenge it then, but I was still unconmfortable and hated it. Anyway, it was part of the job and had to be done. As was taking abuse from customers when things went wrong. As was wearing the uniform. It was part of the job. I also worked for WHSmith where the uniform was a short sleeved blouse and a knee length skirt. I hated wearing skirts but it was part of the job. In both we had to wear name badges. I hate name badges. But it is PART OF THE BLOODY JOB.
So, how can anyone be allowed to refuse to do their job? Now wearing a skirt or name badge is a trivial thing. But this man is allowed to refuse to do part of his job, a vital part of his job. A part of his job that has had a huge impact on Jo-Ann Thomas. What if she’d gone away and not had the courage to complain? What if she’d been a young teenage girl? What if his refusal had left her so disheartened she’d not continued to try to get the pill she needed? What if the next step for her had been an abortion? Is that better? His refusal could have had a far worse result.
So, what’s next. Go and get the morning after pill but only from this chemist on that day because otherwise you’ll get refused? I know people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. I know there are people who are pro life rather than pro choice. But in the end women have a right to this service from their chemists. It’s part of what chemists do. If you don’t like it, then maybe pharmacy isn’t the right job for you?
I find this stunning and anger inducing. I am damned sure there are plenty of folks out there who dislike parts of their job but you take the rough with the smooth, that’s life. If you find that your moral or religious ethics get in the way of you doing the job, don’t do it. But then personal preferences should not enter the workplace.
I’m gobsmacked that an organisation such as the RPS have this in their Code of Ethics. Any pharmacist could make a judgement about a human being and refuse them treatment: “I’m sorry, you are a criminal, you have transgressed my moral code so I refuse to give you x life saving drug”.
Shocking.
Comment by Claire — October 15, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
The thing that I find troubling about these cases (dogmatic infliction of “morality” aside) is that I see it as a form of discrimination against women. You also get many cases whereby pharmacists refuse to sell birth control pills - there are many other reasons to use bc pills other than a form of contraception. The fact that they have such lack of knowledge is a clear evidence that they really might want to consider another career.
On a separate note, I very much like your blog, keep it up!
Comment by Fumiko M — October 20, 2006 @ 2:52 pm