Muslim Chemist Refuses to Dispense Morning After Pill
October 17th, 2006 by Stephen
In an article in the Daily Telegraph we read,
A Muslim chemist repeatedly refused a mother the “morning after” pill because of his religious beliefs.
Now the woman in question was not denied this pill. She simply had to visit her doctor to be supplied it, but she was angry because, in her words:
“I am a 37-year-old woman, not a daft girl who doesn’t know what she’s doing, and the chemist has no right to tell me whether I can or can’t take the pill”
Now she may not be a daft young girl, but if someone needs emergency contraception because of their own decisions, then they are indeed more than a little culpable. Age is not protection against daftness (as I realise more and more as I get older but no less daft myself 
).
As for her assertion that the pharmacist had no right to withold the pill, it turns out that he was entirely within his rights:
A “conscience clause” in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s ethics code, [says]: “It 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.”
The sad thing is to see that people like Stephen Pollard, the biographer of David Blunkett (a biography that seems to be less than factual, and somewhat knowingly understated according to today’s news), have said things like “Do you think that maybe this chap is in the wrong job?”
Why? Because he wants to help people and not harm them? Or is it because he does not accept a secular interpretation on the definition of human life? But how then is Pollard’s secularism superior to this Muslim’s faith?
If only more people were willing to stand up for what they believe in, rather than internalising the double standards of our society. This woman did not agree with the pharmacist, but she still could obtain emergency contraception. But the man’s actions would give her a chance to consider what she was doing.
A muslim bartender who will not serve drinks might well be in the wrong job, but a muslim pharmacist who refuses to act in such a way that he sincerely believes would kill a human life - we need more of these.
Why should pharmacists get a conscience clause any more than any other service provider? They should be allowed, and encouraged, to consider whether or not a perscription is faulty (e.g. overly large does), but it is their obligation as an employee of a company that claims to provide a certain service to fufill that service. However, if a pharmacy wants to decide not to fufill certain persciptions, it should be able to.
Furthermore, the consious clause seems prone to abuse. What if someone is against birth control pills for preventing pregnancy but is fine with using them to treat various diseases of the female reproductive system? Should the pharmacist be allowed to ask people why they are getting a perscription filled? If they are not allowed, they will either have to go against their moral beliefs (defeating the purpose of the clause) and always fill it or deny it to those they think are legitimately in need and never fill it. The problem with a practical appliation of a consious clause for pharmacists is that there are very few medications for which a moral judgment can be made given the information available to the pharamacist.
Hi Erika,
You ask why pharmacists should get a conscience clause over any other service provider, but in fact they are not specially treated. No service provider is required to act against their conscience, and to do so would be a restriction on free exercise of religion.
There is an argument that it is not the pharmacist being required to take the medication, but if the pharmacist is forced to dispense medication that he honestly believes is going to lead to a human death, he has the right not to dispense that medication, just as a surgeon has a right not to perfrom an abortion.
It is not an issue of what a pharmacy company wants. Companies may not act in a manner that forces their staff to act against their conscience. And I don’t really see how it is better for the pharmacy to make a blanket policy than to leave the issue to the individual consciences of pharmacists.
You raise the issue of birth control pills, but that is not what is at stake here. Emergency contraception is a more contentious issue as there are many people who believe that they work in a manner that causes termination of human life. One need not agree with them to see how it would be a matter of conscience to refrain from prescription of such medications.
And even though the pharmacist refused the medication, he was not denying it to the woman. A doctor can prescribe this medication, and the woman concerned needed only consult her doctor. However, in consulting her doctor, some of the issues that precipitated the necessity of taking the medication can be sensitively explored. Even though the end result may be the same this time, it may be that his actions would then prevent a repeat occurrence.
Thanks for commenting.
Stephen
With regard to pharmacists being special: Are you saying that a restaurant would not be able to fire a waiter or cook who refused to serve meat and a store not fire a clerk who refused to sell caffeine? Like with a pharmacy, these are both cases where there was a reasonable expectation when the person took the job that they would have to do these things, even if it was against their morals, and it can be argued that they should have been personally responsible up front and not taken a job that would inevitably conflict with their morals.
With regard to morning after pill vs birth control: Are you are saying then, that the consious clause only applies to perscriptions with a matter of life or death? Are you saying a pharmacist would have to fufill a birth control perscription even if it was against his concious? The consious clause, as I understand it, makes no difference between life and death moral situations and other ones.
Regarding waiters and clerks (shop assistants?), I note: firstly that this is not a direct comparison of the particulars. In these cases there is no expectation of loss or harm to human life, nor - as far as I know - a religion that teaches that we may not sell meat or coffee. However, if a waiter were employed in a resteraunt that sold only vegetarin food, and they took that post because their conscience prohibited their taking a job in a resteraunt for omnivores, then it would indeed be illegitimate for the owner of the resteraunt to suddenly insist that henceforth they must serve meat to people who request it.
I would fully expect such a case to go before an industrial tribunal, and if the waiter were dismisseed, that they could claim for constructive dismissal.
(I am guessing you are in the U.S. from your posting times, in which case you may disagree because labour laws are much weaker in the U.S. That, to me, is a problem in the U.S. - not a strength).
In a pharmacy, the pharmacist has studied and trained to join the pharmacists profession, which - like the medical profession - is predicated on the concept of alleviating suffering, preserving life and helping. To suddenly be asked to act in a manner against these principles is not a case of reasonable expectation of the job. It is the reasonable expectation of a pharmacist that they will not be asked to act in a manner detrimental to human life, which is why they are given a conscience clause over those few controversial medications such as the morning after pill, which one can quite reasonably believe causes human death (whether you agree with their interpretation or not).
Thanks for posting.
Stephen