I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[craft1948]

I agree karen.........why do we see cases of muslims sueing Tesco 'cos they've taken a job and then refuse to handle pork......bloody ridiculous!!

[jno]

mike11111, I'd say the opposite. I don't mind at all having a pharmacist checking out my symptoms in case there could be side-effects I don't know about - and from time to time it's turned out that there are, because I haven't always read the information sheets on OTC medicines. No harm in receiving a bit of expertise.

[mike11111]

Probably the most relevant anwser this evening, karenmack60. Although I don't share your views re vegeterianism, you are spot on with your comment to the effect: "If you don't like the heat, keep out of the kitchen!"

[TCL-MUMPING]

IIf I were hired on condition that I would be allowed to take a two-hour nap during working hours then an employer could hardly mump when I did so. Pharmacists have a code which allows them to refuse to do something which conflicts wi their religious beliefs and refusing to deal wi a small percentage of the products available in a pharmacy is hardly the same as refusing to sell meat in a butcher's

[jno]

I'm sort of wondering just how many posters on this thread have been subjected to this awful impositon of others' consciences, TCL... Apparently there are 12,600 pharmacies in Britain, and just one instance in just one of them has made it into the Mail. Obviously time we chucked out Magna Carta.

[mike11111]

I recently received this piece of advice from a practising GP. "On no account read the information enclosed with OCT medicines. If you do, and accept that everything therein will happen, you will never take it" Perhaps the best solution would be to open the packet in the pharmacy, read the instructions, and then decide whether to buy. You might at least save some money, although I doubt that you will endear yourself the the people in the queue behind you.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Contraceptives represent about 1.3% of the pharmacy market in terms of value so the comparison of a data analyst refusing to use a computer is rubbish

[LazyGun]

TCL continues to argue a strawman. By putting their religiously derived morals first, they denied a patient prescribed medication. This is unprofessional. The GphC have weaseled out of challenging this, and allowed this ridiculous situation to continue.

In the current situation, pharmacies that are going to deny certain types of treatment because of their oh so precious religious convictions should, at the very least, have a prominently displayed notice saying so, and offering details as to where the prospective patients can go.

Keep your faith to yourselves, and stop imposing it upon others, either proactively or reactively.

[TCL-MUMPING]

The original thread is “I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?” The Code of Ethics states

“Ensure that if your religious or moral beliefs prevent you from providing a particular professional service, the relevant persons or authorities are informed of this and patients are referred to alternative providers for the service they require.”


A spokesman for The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) has said, “While the Code of Ethics and Standards does not require a pharmacist to provide a service that is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, any attempt by a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on a member of the public seeking their professional guidance, or a failure to have systems in place to advise of alternative sources for the service required, would be of great concern to the RPSGB and could form the basis of a complaint of professional misconduct.”

No-one has provided any proof that any chemist has forced his or her view on any customer and it is strange that a person who acted entirely legally and within the terms of a professional body's Code of Ethics and Standards should be expected to resign for doing so.

[TCL-MUMPING]

I am sure there are many Christians who murder, steal, commit adultery etc. There are many so-called Christians who would not recognise their local minister if given a choice of two faces. There are those who profess to follow a particular belief and there are those who do, it follows then, there will be Muslims who will sell alcohol and pork.

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, You aren't listening. The proprietor of the shop had no objection to providing the prescribed medication, but the staff member took it upon herself to refuse to serve a customer because of her own religious convictions. The only alternative she suggested was for the customer to return the next day when another member of staff would be available. Therefore she didn't act legally, she wasn't within her rights, and she did impose her religious beliefs upon the customer. You're defending this woman, but she was quite clearly wrong.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Really? The employer said "By directing the customer to an alternative source of provision, the pharmacist acted in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's Code of Ethics and Standards, which makes provision for individual pharmacists to refuse to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs."

[Clanad]

As a total outsider, seems to me TCL_Mumping has provided a clear and concise anwer with more than adequate quotes from the regulation that strongly supports his/her point absent only any accusation the pharmicist actually prostelyzed the customer... for what it's worth...

[chakka35]

I really don't understand why this correspondence has got this far. Of course a pharmacist's assistant who refuses to sell contraceptives for religious reasons is imposing that religiosity on the customer. Saying that the customer can go elsewhere is merely dodging the issue - using a practicality to get round the principle.

Supposing there wasn't an 'elsewhere'. Would the assistant still be entitled to refuse to serve the customer? If so, then the customer would be refused contraception because of someone else's religious beliefs. If not, then the assistant would have to hand the item over regardless of her beliefs, so why can't she do that anyway?

It has been said by others before me: that no-one should take a job (pharmacist's assistant, check-out employee, adoption arranger) where their religious beliefs are going to affect other people adversely - just as I, an atheist, would not take a job where I had to promote beliefs I disapproved of.

(Come to think of it, I was once in that position when I was approached by an Order of nuns to make a film about them. I pointed out that I was an atheist and was therefore not prepared to promote their religious beliefs in any way. They said that was fine by them. So I made a film which told of how Blessed Julie of Namur (as she was then - has she been canonised yet?) founded the Order to give an education to poor children, work which the Order still carried out in poor districts, especially in my home city of Liverpool. That work was so worthy that it stood out on its own without the need for me to justify it on religious grounds. The final film pleased them and left my conscience unworried.)

[TCL-MUMPING]

"I pointed out that I was an atheist and was therefore not prepared to promote their religious beliefs in any way" those beliefs did not prevent you from making a film for anyone else in much the same way as a pharmacist who opposed contraception would be able to sell 98% of the other products.