Crosswords1 min ago
I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?
248 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm
I find this absolutely shocking!
No question just a bit of early morning venting!
I find this absolutely shocking!
No question just a bit of early morning venting!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
oh sorry, just re read..it was a medication prescribed by a doctor. THAT is unacceptable meddling.
From my days working in the NHS there are get outs from the equality laws which are known as GOC's- genuine occupational conditions. So for instance if you are advertising for someone to work in a pork pie factory, you can make it a GOC that they have to be prepared to handle pork. In the NHS it is mainly used where it wouldn't be appropriate for (say) a man to do a certain job an example of this might be working with very disturbed female children.
I can see where this could be used to cover pharmacists. Pharmacies dispense prescribed medicines and offer contraceptive advice (and other health advice too) not just out of the goodness of their hearts or for commercial gain but as a part of the NHS service. The NHS PAY pharmacies to do this. Now if you have an employee who is refusing to do some or all of this and there is no one else on site to do it instead, that is a breach of contract and will be treated as such.
jno is dead right, shop keepers cannot be forced to serve you but if the shop has already agreed with the NHS to do so by accepting payment on the contract then the shop owner, who may not be the pharmacist, is in breach of that contract and if I were the lady in the newspaper piece then that is where I would be taking this argument.
From my days working in the NHS there are get outs from the equality laws which are known as GOC's- genuine occupational conditions. So for instance if you are advertising for someone to work in a pork pie factory, you can make it a GOC that they have to be prepared to handle pork. In the NHS it is mainly used where it wouldn't be appropriate for (say) a man to do a certain job an example of this might be working with very disturbed female children.
I can see where this could be used to cover pharmacists. Pharmacies dispense prescribed medicines and offer contraceptive advice (and other health advice too) not just out of the goodness of their hearts or for commercial gain but as a part of the NHS service. The NHS PAY pharmacies to do this. Now if you have an employee who is refusing to do some or all of this and there is no one else on site to do it instead, that is a breach of contract and will be treated as such.
jno is dead right, shop keepers cannot be forced to serve you but if the shop has already agreed with the NHS to do so by accepting payment on the contract then the shop owner, who may not be the pharmacist, is in breach of that contract and if I were the lady in the newspaper piece then that is where I would be taking this argument.
HMMM "discrimination based around religious sensibilities" That's a bit harder. Let me give you an example. I am now retired but used to work in the NHS as an Occupational Therapist. Our job is basically to identify what activities our patients value and devise ways of them being able to carry on doing them following disability and or illness. One of the big moral debates on that is around the use of sex workers by people who are very severely disabled. Some OT's say that their job is not to make moral judgements but to assist and advise their in patient whatever they want to do.
My line here is that I could probably go along with the sex worker thing but if I had had someone come along whose valued activity was slaughtering a sheep for a religious festival I would have said no. If I could, I would have found another member of staff to take over but that is a line I would not have crossed. I think the difference is that I would have been prepared to lose my job over it, not that i would then have taken the NHS to court for discrimination.
My line here is that I could probably go along with the sex worker thing but if I had had someone come along whose valued activity was slaughtering a sheep for a religious festival I would have said no. If I could, I would have found another member of staff to take over but that is a line I would not have crossed. I think the difference is that I would have been prepared to lose my job over it, not that i would then have taken the NHS to court for discrimination.
chakka - werent you on here sometime telling us about you writing and demanding that chemists (boots etc) stop selling copper bracelets or herbal medicine something ?
i suppose that the conscience clause would suit you in that instance, you know if you were required by your emplyer to peddle this stuff but objected to it.
i suppose that the conscience clause would suit you in that instance, you know if you were required by your emplyer to peddle this stuff but objected to it.
LazyGun, this isn't based on religious sensibilities, it's based on conscience.
As Ankou, I think it was, asked earlier: would you have had all conscientious objectors to war taken out and shot in 1939 for 'forcing their views on other people'? Do you object when your MP votes according to conscience rather than obeying the party whip? Are people entitled to have and act on consciences or not?
As Ankou, I think it was, asked earlier: would you have had all conscientious objectors to war taken out and shot in 1939 for 'forcing their views on other people'? Do you object when your MP votes according to conscience rather than obeying the party whip? Are people entitled to have and act on consciences or not?
If she had a conscience about contraceptives then she shouldn't have taken a job which involves selling them especially working in a pharmacy which requires her to give out prescribed medicines.
No one is questioning her beliefs and personal morals which she is of course entiltled to,but she shouldn't have applied for that job.
And jno-if I saw a chemist I would expect them to sell me the medications I needed and I too would be furious if they refused to give me them.
No one is questioning her beliefs and personal morals which she is of course entiltled to,but she shouldn't have applied for that job.
And jno-if I saw a chemist I would expect them to sell me the medications I needed and I too would be furious if they refused to give me them.
TCL Mumping, It is reasonable to assume that a major company like Lloyds would ensure that their shops are adequately staffed at all times. If this shop had been this furore wouldn't have arisen. You really are grasping at straws.
//Did the pharmacist express anything about her religion other than it prevented her from dispensing contraceptives?//
That's the whole point. What other than that did she need to express? She refused to issue the medication because it was against her religion. Therefore she was forcing her views on the customer.
Instead of dragging us all around the houses yet again, why don't you answer the question I've asked you numerous times? Perhaps we'll be able to understand where you're coming from then and get down to the real basis of this argument.
Ankou, We're talking here about medication prescribed by a doctor.
jno, //it's based on conscience.// Yes, her conscience, but what gives her the right to impose her conscience on anybody else?
//Did the pharmacist express anything about her religion other than it prevented her from dispensing contraceptives?//
That's the whole point. What other than that did she need to express? She refused to issue the medication because it was against her religion. Therefore she was forcing her views on the customer.
Instead of dragging us all around the houses yet again, why don't you answer the question I've asked you numerous times? Perhaps we'll be able to understand where you're coming from then and get down to the real basis of this argument.
Ankou, We're talking here about medication prescribed by a doctor.
jno, //it's based on conscience.// Yes, her conscience, but what gives her the right to impose her conscience on anybody else?
"TCL Mumping, It is reasonable to assume that a major company like Lloyds would ensure that their shops are adequately staffed at all times. If this shop had been this furore wouldn't have arisen. You really are grasping at straws."
What if the "reserve" pharmacist had the same religious beliefs? Why do the likes of Boots The Chemists put up a sign saying the pharmacist is absent, are they not a major company too? The truth is you have been things are clear or obvious yet have not been able to provide the evidence and have made assumptions.
You have said the pharmacist broke Lloyds' policy-no proof.
You said she had not informed them of her beliefs-no proof.
You said that if she had then Lloyds would not have employed her-no proof.
You said she had broken the Code of Ethics –no proof and Lloyds said the exact opposite
You said you’d be willing to bet that she didn't speak up about her religious convictions at her job interview-no proof she didn’t
it stands to reason that in a pharmacy there would have had to have been another member of staff available who was willing to do the job that this woman was employed to do-no proof
What if the "reserve" pharmacist had the same religious beliefs? Why do the likes of Boots The Chemists put up a sign saying the pharmacist is absent, are they not a major company too? The truth is you have been things are clear or obvious yet have not been able to provide the evidence and have made assumptions.
You have said the pharmacist broke Lloyds' policy-no proof.
You said she had not informed them of her beliefs-no proof.
You said that if she had then Lloyds would not have employed her-no proof.
You said she had broken the Code of Ethics –no proof and Lloyds said the exact opposite
You said you’d be willing to bet that she didn't speak up about her religious convictions at her job interview-no proof she didn’t
it stands to reason that in a pharmacy there would have had to have been another member of staff available who was willing to do the job that this woman was employed to do-no proof
well we all have an obligation to inform our consciences and not deny rights to others by an over-sensitive conscience, works both ways.
i still see chakka waving his letters and fists at the queues of people queing up to buy dr bachs in boots or holland and barrat. seems whats good for the goose aint so good for the gander (unless it suits them).
i still see chakka waving his letters and fists at the queues of people queing up to buy dr bachs in boots or holland and barrat. seems whats good for the goose aint so good for the gander (unless it suits them).
"Common sense should tell you that a major high street pharmacy would not leave a shop solely in the hands of someone who would refuse to hand prescription medication to patients."
Prescriptions can not be dispensed unless there is a pharmacist physically present. As I have said previously notices are often put up to make folk aware that the pharmacist is not present or the pharmacy is closed due to the pharmacist's absence. In these circumstances no-one can had over prescribed medicines. I have also said this happens in branches of Boots The Chemist (and in the chemist in ASDA as it happens.) I am sure both have policies so how come they are not able to bring a sub off the bench to cover lunch and toilet breaks? Is it because any inconvenience is deemed to be so irregular or so minimal that employing more than one pharmacist is not justified? If no, can you show me where it states at least one pharmacist must be physically present at ALL times?
Prescriptions can not be dispensed unless there is a pharmacist physically present. As I have said previously notices are often put up to make folk aware that the pharmacist is not present or the pharmacy is closed due to the pharmacist's absence. In these circumstances no-one can had over prescribed medicines. I have also said this happens in branches of Boots The Chemist (and in the chemist in ASDA as it happens.) I am sure both have policies so how come they are not able to bring a sub off the bench to cover lunch and toilet breaks? Is it because any inconvenience is deemed to be so irregular or so minimal that employing more than one pharmacist is not justified? If no, can you show me where it states at least one pharmacist must be physically present at ALL times?
"Prescriptions can not be dispensed unless there is a pharmacist physically present." I agree with that. What is extremely frustrating is that when I go to collect a prescription which has already been dispensed, and I can see it neatly packaged on the shelf with my name and address, the assistant is not allowed to hand it over in the absence of the pharmacist. This has caused me major inconvenience on not a few occasions. A notice in the shop door/window giving times when the pharmacist will not be available would at least help in avoiding wasted journeys.
You have NOT explained the comments since there is no evidence AT ALL that the pharmacist's action was in contravention of ANYTHING. You have made assumptions about what she said to get the job, you made assumptions about Lloydspharmacy’s policies.
You said “she didn't act legally”, rubbish, you said she was deceitful, rubbish.
You have nothing to support ANY of those statements, if you have, back them up with the evidence and not opinions.
You said “she didn't act legally”, rubbish, you said she was deceitful, rubbish.
You have nothing to support ANY of those statements, if you have, back them up with the evidence and not opinions.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Film, Media & TV22 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.