Woman denied the Pill ‘because of religion'

[GAZ]

While I understand the pharmacist doing what she did, I fail to see why, when she is likely to have to face this situation quite often, she works in community. There are plenty of pharmaceutical jobs where she wouldn't be faced with the issue.

this is my view as well! Also, the pharmacist is not in a position to know for sure why the "contraceptive pill" has been prescribed for this patient - it may be that it is to help regulate menstrual periods AND the lady may not be in a sexual relationship!?

[johnep]

Do we have a spammer offering pirated films?
johnep

[bleepholder]

i haven't been too bothered to read through all the previous posts..too many pages to flick through!

but i'm guessing the consensus of signposting has cropped up! im sure its something the society preach as well??

i can see why people would get frustrated as to why pharmacists wouldn't supply the pill or EHC, as we have a duty to provide care for the patient. but as long as we're non judgmental and do the sign posting i can't see that much of a problem with it!!

[johnep]

The case reported tonight of a counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to a gay couple has set a precedent. I believe this means that any pharmacist refusing to supply OCs or EHC can now be sacked at will.
I understand that the ruling will affect both Muslims and Christians.
johnep

[Proteuspal]

Hi all,
i posted a question along these lines in the pre reg forum. I was delighted to see so many of you discussing this topic here. I am doing a pre reg paper and found this question:
First statement-A patient must not be deprived of treatment because of the personal convictions or religious beliefs of a pharmacist
Second statement - A pharmacist may not object to dispensing particular treatments on the grounds of conscience

I have been hearing about the conscience clause, where can I find this exactly? i.e. what section of the MEP, because I really cannot see it anywhere.

I have read this whole thread and based on what I have read, the answers should be:
First statement-false (A pharmacist can deprive a patient of treatment as long as they redirect the patient to an appropriate source of help)
Second statement -False (A pharmacist can object to supplying based on their conscience)

I hope there is actually a definitive answer to this question, otherwise its a bit silly to put it in a sample paper!
Many thanks
Proteuspal

[bleepholder]

if thats the case, then they need to scrap the idea of signposting then...seems pointless to have it, if you're only going to be prosecuted for following what your own governing body advocate!

[bleepholder]

i don't think there is ever going to be a clear cut answer...its all in the murky depths of making an ethical decision.....there is rarely ever a correct answer......

surely signposting the patient elsewhere is classed as providing care to the patient, albeit indeirectly????

[johnep]

Not entered as an option for the counsellor, perhaps he has grounds for an appeal.
johnep

[roper]

This was his attempt to appeal wasn't it? However he is not a pharmacist and we do have this principle accepted at present - opinion seems to be swinging against it and I can't point the student above to where it is written so I might need to do some CPD myself (too busy waiting for overdue baby to make an appearance just now though, followed by maternity leave).

[roper]

This extract from the 1992 code (found in a recent PJ article by professor Joy Wingfield) is what I remember because it was current when I was an undergraduate.

* No person shall be deprived of service because of a pharmacist’s conscience
* Patient must be advised of alternative source of supply
* No condemnation or criticism to be made of a patient’s requirements
* Every effort to deal with the request in a discreet and confidential manner

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it just too much to go through the code of ethics with a fine tooth comb after every rewording.
The article looks interesting.Should conscience come before care? | PJ Online