It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New code allows religious pharmacists to opt out of prescribing contraception

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

New code allows religious pharmacists to opt out of prescribing contraception


www.teleg raph.co.uk

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), the new industry regulator, has clarified guidelines in the revised code, which states that staff can opt out of handing out the pill or the morning after pill.

The so-called "conscience clause" has been criticised and The National Secular Society had been campaigning to get it scrapped.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 25/3/2010 by BlackPoison94]

[edit on 25/3/2010 by BlackPoison94]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said he was disappointed that the GPhC did not take the opportunity to stop personal beliefs from getting in the way of the service.

"This was a perfect opportunity to severely restrict the exercise of this supposed conscience clause which has caused a great deal of embarrassment and inconvenience to people recently," he said.

"It seems incredible that pharmacists can arbitrarily tell people that they won't serve them with medication that has been prescribed by a doctor."

Meanwhile, it has been announced that the cost of a prescription in England will be frozen at £7.20 per item in 2010/11.

Health Minister Mike O'Brien also said NHS dental charges will remain the same throughout the year.

Prescriptions are free in Wales, will be free in Northern Ireland from next month and by 2011 in Scotland.

A review into prescription charges in England is due to be published shortly by the Government.



Wow. I mean they're bringing religion now into scientific discussions.

I've got nothing against religion but someone is influencing their own views on someone else. This is unnacceptable. Everyone does have the right to believe in what they like...but refusing to give whatever to someone else due to their beliefs?

That’s just over the top.


www.teleg raph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 25/3/2010 by BlackPoison94]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So now religious people want to increase abortion numbers?
it's okay if they are against this, it's fine
but then don't take the job, find something else!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
It may just be me, but I don't see anything wrong with people who hold certain beliefs to not be required to hand out medication that goes against their beliefs. I mean, pharmacists don't work by themselves. If someone comes and wants the morning after pill, one would simply say, "I can't give that to you. It's against my beliefs. Here's Frank..." Service isn't denied.


Originally posted by BlackPoison94
I've got nothing against religion but someone is influencing their own views on someone else.

Saying that you have a moral problem with giving someone the morning after pill is hardly forcing your beliefs onto someone.


Originally posted by BlackPoison94
...but refusing to give whatever to someone else due to their beliefs?

That’s just over the top.

Out of curiosity, would you say a similar thing about conscientious objectors of war? Is it wrong, or over the top, for them to not go fight in a war, if required by their country, because fighting in a war is against their beliefs?

Of course not. It's not wrong for someone to stay out of conflict because they think that it's morally wrong. Likewise, it shouldn't be deemed as wrong for someone to hand out a medication to someone because they think that it is morally wrong to do so.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
My first thought on reading this is, that if you are refused the correct medical treatment, then surely it is malpratice.

But now it has actually become UK law then medical staff can refuse to treat you. This will eventually lead to treatment being refused on all sorts of illnesses because medical staff have a religious objection.

This is totally against the founding principles of the NHS and is just another screwup by the idiot government that i live under



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
If they don't want to do it thats fine, they need to go work elsewhere and find a different position is all. I myself couldn't put a dog to sleep, even if its the dog needs it, I just couldnt do it. So, I will not be a vet.

I respect their choice but they do need to find a different profession then.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
My understanding is that chemists are obliged to help their customers, as doctors are obliged.

I would suggest that if chemists cannot freely prescribe anything they have, they should not be chemists.

It is not up to them to dictate to people, as it is not up to anyone.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
If they just hand off the dispensing duty to another pharmacist, no harm done.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
A key question on all applications is ' can you do the duties that this job requires of you?' if that answer is 'No' perhaps you shouldnt be applying for that type of position.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 


Should a person who has been a pharmacist for years be expected to quit?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


So what your saying is that you don't have a problem with pharmacists not doing their job based on their religion.
If they don't like it, maybe they should have chosen a different career.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


If they are going to deny someone something like that based on their own personal preference, then yes, they should quit.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


If they're not willing to do the job they themselves persued as their career choice then yes. They should be expected to do the job that they are paid to do. If they in good conscience cannot do that then I would expect them to quit. Its their free choice to work in that field, nobody is forcing them. If they can't handle the duties that entails they need to move on to other things.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


That's f'n bullsh*#t.
A pharmacist has no more right to deny someone medication than a...well...I have no real comparison.
Pharmacists are there do do their job, their personal opinion means nothing.
I hate stuff like this.
Just makes me so angry.
Once I'm working in a hospital, I don't really have a right to refuse treatment to anyone.
My personal opinion of that person doesn't matter, their health and well-being does.
Pharmacists take a similar oath, and by refusing someone medication, regardless of their "conscientious objection", they are doing harm.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 


Should a person who has been a pharmacist for years be expected to quit?


No.
They should be expected to do their f'n job and not judge.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Secular doctors should have the right to refuse religious people medical care on account of them polluting the gene pool with stupid.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


That was bloody brilliant.
I'm friending you for that post, and just because I like your name.




top topics



 
0

log in

join