UK pharmacist refuses to give morning after pill 'on religious grounds'

[ChristinaM 0]

As far as anyone suing the pharmacist, whatever happened to "buyer beware" in the US?

Oh - I forgot - it went out the window when people started being able to successfully sue MacDonalds because - OMGROTLFBBQ!!oneone! - their coffee was HOT!!!

I don't personally believe that a pharmacist should have any right to refuse a medicine for any reason other than that a prescription is required but has not been obtained. As has been said earlier, if you don't want to dispense certain drugs, don't become a pharmacist. I don't get to choose which clients I sell a phone system to based on whether or not their religious beliefs offend me. If you are a dispensing chemist, dispense drugs for crying out loud. Or take a pay cut, proportional to the number of drugs you will not dispense.

[mawilson 2,133]

Anyway, many christians have refused to sell this drug... why is it headline news that one muslim has?

I'd fire them in a second, whether they are Christians, Muslims or Scientologists.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Anyway, many christians have refused to sell this drug... why is it headline news that one muslim has?

I'd fire them in a second, whether they are Christians, Muslims or Scientologists.

Careful, Tom Cruise COULD be watching!

[Mags 112]

Not for over the counter medicines...which the morning after pill is.

Why not? He owns what's behind the counter too.

Because in the UK he is paid a fee by the NHS...he works for them in an indirect way. Therefore, he has to supply the medicines.

Pharmacies are not the same as a normal shop. Don't compare them.

[sheraz 0]

If the London case is a different one, its not the first instance. An IL pharmacist did the same thing. He was an evangelical christian and the courts supported his stance. So the case closed and it was decided that the pharmacist had the discretion to give out the drugs he chose to.

Yes, the pharmacist has the discretion to do so. No one is arguing otherwise. However, I would submit to you that they shouldn't have the discretion. JMHO.

I would agree, they shouldn't but the same note, they shouldn't be responsible if some woman decided a month too late that she didn't want the child and took it then leaving the baby to grow albeit deformed.

OTC drugs should leave much of the responsibility on the consumer, after all don't they always tell us, READ the label?

Maybe that is just me though...

I wonder if she had of gone in with a prescription from her doctor for it, would he have then sold her the drug despite his religious beliefs?

I think most people really dont care about their religious beliefs when it comes to work. I agree with the above statement, she could have just used it, turned around and then sued the pharmacist. I would imagine, the trickle down effect of the Vioxx, Celebrex case will be that pharmist will also start getting sued. Everyone will protect themselves.

OTC for birth control is probably the best solution.

Did the doctor actually prescribe this medication