I am just amazed that laws like this are allowed in these times; religious fantasy allowed to dictate what pharmacists can and cannot sell... read the links, the petition is here: http://chng.it/LzB2NXYdWr
Welcome to UKHIppy
UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.
Absolutely and unconditionally not acceptable for refusal on religious grounds imo.
However the right for health professionals to exclude themselves from any action that might termitate pregnancy is protected as a right of practice.
Abortion remains highly contentious and so far health professionals cannot be lawfully forced to contribute towards it.
In the case of pharmacists this seems bonkers.
But pharmacists might then argue that any nurse or doctor should also be forced into actions that contribute towards abortion.
But surely medicine should be based on logic, not superstition?
It might be hoped that superstition went out of medicine a long time ago.
The call here is not for some potion that produces abortion, but merely something that discards a possibility of conception.
Doesn't really matter what the call is, if the doctor prescribes it the pharmacist should have to hand it over. If you don't want to do that then fuck off & don't be a pharmacist. Like me turning up in a JCB & saying I'm ethically opposed to digging fuckin holes!
i,m with you on that Bigbear
The Morning after pill was the one I picked up on. It does not require a prescription.
I personally see no reason why any pharmacist should be allowed to deny access to medication on grounds of conscientious objection.
If you object to it, don't take it but that doesn't give you the right to stop other people taking it. Imagine what the world would be like if everybody had to live by the rules made by one person....
Quite happy to keep taking her extravagant pharmacists salary though while exercising her right to descriminate on her religious ethics.. Dont like the ethical dilemma fuck off.
I hope Sainsburys kick her off the premises on the grounds shes a bigot.
Having been brought up in a cult that would have had "moral concerns" about dispensing some medicines (even condoms in my day!) I can appreciate the kinds of pressure a believing practitioner might experience. I think the problem comes because of the belief that they have some kind of "truth" and everyone is potentially a convert.
Until and unless everyone can accept that everyone else is entitled to make their own pathway through life I can't see this changing. Until then anyone who is not prepared to provide any service allowed for in law should seriously consider their choice of employment, though I can't really see that happening without some external persuasion. Should the professional associations that have an influence in these kinds of professions exercise a bit of muscle? If they don't the law will have to step in.
Quite agree. Part of this problem is that few religious people can keep their beliefs inside their own religion. It would not be so bad if they confined their beliefs to people within their own religion. So long as people were free to leave that religion without harm, of course.
But many do not, and want the rest of the world to do as they do.
In effect saying: "My religion does not permit this or that, so I cannot do this or that. You should not do this or that either, because my religion says it is not acceptable".
This often dangerous tendency is that of projecting your fantasy - often an organised collective fantasy - onto the rest of humankind, and using all means possible including coercion and sometimes brutal force to get them to comply with your fantasy, and somehow finding that morally acceptable.
The only way to stop this sort of thing is to have a truly secular society that does not allow religions to interfere with the wellbeing of members of that society.
Religion aside pro lifers still hold sway and when individuals deeply and seriously examine their stance on Abortion/termination it remains problematic and conflictual and contentious.
The action of aborting a foetus can present the operating clinician with a clear view of an aborted human in various stages of development or a bloodily minced up and amputated version of one.
I am pro Abortion rights but would never expect nor want to participate in performing such and would not be forced into doing so.
Its fortunate that some health professionals can and do stomach it thereby reducing the incidence of complications that would come with backstreet abortions.
There remains a very clearly recognised objection to Abortion and whether you are pro or anti there are very few people who could actually perform it without literally vomiting.
Very true, but we weren't talking about getting an abortion at the chemist's.
We were discussing a pill that prevents an abortion by taking it shortly after (within days of) a possible conception.
And the religious persons working as pharmacists who will take a full salary for work they are not performing properly, because their religious views say they should not sell you this pill.
Not even to prevent a bloody abortion later on.
Aye... Ive gone a bit beyond
The morning after pill was mentioned as being refused in the original quotes.
I guess dispensing it might give a pro life pharmacist graphic and bloody nightmares.