WHEN, back in 2006, a branch of Lloyds pharmacy in Rotherham was forced to apologise to a woman who was denied the “morning after” pill by a “deeply religious” employee, it was revealed that the man who refused to do dispense the pill was a Muslim, whose identity was never revealed.
But now that it’s happened again – this time in regard to a contraceptive pill – both the name of the female who refused to do her job, as well as her religious affiliation, are being kept from public scrutiny.
Jo-Ann Thomas, left, and Janine Deeley: both victims of religious zealotry
The first case involved Jo-Ann Thomas, 37. When she demanded to know why the pharmacist on duty was refusing her the pill, an assistant:
Went bright red, and after a pause said ‘I can’t tell you’.
Pressed on the matter, the assistant said:
Don’t say anything to anyone – it’s because of his religion.
Ms Thomas added:
I just stared at her with my mouth open. I was angry because he is a dispensing chemist and it is his job to dispense drugs. If he can’t do that on religious grounds then perhaps he should not be in the profession. This is a perfectly legal drug but there is a man introducing his own laws. It cannot be right that he can pick and choose the drugs he sells.”
I am a 37-year-old woman and not a daft girl who does not know what she is doing. And the chemist has no right to tell me whether I can or can’t take the pill. It’s my choice not his. It his religion not mine.
How many young girls has he turned away who need the pill? If they are his views why didn’t he come and face me and tell me. The chemist staff were trying to cover up for him and were embarrassed.
The pharmacists and staff at the pharmacy refused to comment but Dr John Radford, Rotherham’s Director of Public Health said:
Pharmacists do have the right to use their discretion in selling over the counter drugs. These drugs will be stocked by the pharmacy to be supplied when a prescription is written by a doctor. Any pharmacy refusing to sell a drug has a duty to provide the customer with information as to where they can obtain it including over the counter at an alternative pharmacy or via their GP or practice nurse on prescription.
A spokesman for Lloyd’s which operates 1,300 pharmacies across the country said :
We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the customer. However, a pharmacist’s personal decision to refuse to supply the morning after pill is an issue for the community pharmacy as a whole.
The code of ethics put in place by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists via a conscience clause the right to refuse.
The code 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.
Lloyds was forced to apologise again this week after a South Yorkshire woman, Janine Deeley, was turned away by the female chemist at Lloyds pharmacy in Duke Street, Sheffield, when she went to pick up her prescription.
The mother-of-two, 38, said:
The pharmacist said she had my other medication but wasn’t going to give me the pill. I initially thought that was a bit strange and perhaps I was supposed to pick them up somewhere else. She said no, she wasn’t giving me the contraceptive because it was against her religion. I thought she must have been joking.
She added:
I don’t mind the fact that she’s got a religion but she shouldn’t force it down anybody’s neck and it shouldn’t affect her work.
Miss Deeley also said she was worried teenagers like her two daughters, Carlie, 18, and 14-year-old Lauren, might be put off using contraception if they encountered such difficulties.
I don’t want the pharmacist to lose her job but I think that if she’s going to be a pharmacist she shouldn’t expect people to accept her religion. She should accept that, in this country, we have the legal right to contraception and, if it’s against her religion, she shouldn’t be doing that job.
A spokeswoman for Lloyds pharmacy said she was not aware which religion the pharmacist belonged to, and an investigation had been launched.
She added:
Lloyds pharmacy is very sorry that Ms Deeley was refused supply of her prescribed contraceptive pill at our Duke Street pharmacy.We have launched an investigation into the incident and been in contact with her to apologise for any distress and inconvenience caused.
A spokesman for NHS Sheffield added:
We take patient concerns very seriously and while we have not yet received a complaint from Ms Deeley we would be happy to investigate the matter on her behalf if she gets in touch through our normal complaints system.
Hat Tip: Ian E
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 11th, 2010 at 10:06 am
If these nitwits can’t do their jobs they should be fired. If they want to practice their religion and shove it down the throats of others, there are plenty of churches and religious businesses that would be more than happy to hire them.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:19 am
One of the girls says she doesn’t want the chemist to lose her job. I do. You don’t become a dispensing chemist in this country without being fully aware of what drugs you will be asked to provide. Chemists should not be given an opt out clause. Do the job or do something else.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I have decided that I will become a street sweeper, declare it against my religion to sweep streets and draw a steady income while sitting at home watching telly.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
In the second case, it wasn’t contraception that the pharmacist was refusing to dispense. It was a legally prescribed steroid treatment for endometriosis, which just happened to be the same substance as a contraceptive pill. Striking-off territory, I should think.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:46 am
This is ABSOLUTELY f*cking outrageous – these braindead throwbacks should be held directly financially responsible for any children resulting from client intercourse after having their prescriptions with-held on a whim.
That would stop them f*cking about with people’s lives – who do they think they are – I am incensed!
Their minds are constipated with woo, mumbo jumbo and bad juju – How on earth can they get anything done as they blunder along applying a cave-dwelling savage’s criteria to 21st century life?
It’s just like that hollywood movie “california man” about a defrosted caveman in modern day america – as that was bloody stupid, depressing and not at all funny too.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:03 am
I suggest everyone should write a letter of complaint to Lloyds chemist. I need a job, as do many others. I also do not think we should trust any religious nut job to dispense drugs. It is obviously not rocket science dispensing these drugs as religious idiots have these jobs already, surely any reasonably intelligent (slightly higher than a can of dog food) person could do this job or perhaps a trained monkey, what do you think?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Well, as long as the pay isn’t peanuts…
March 11th, 2010 at 11:28 am
If there is one thing we English are really good at, it is organising a boycott.
Unless there is no other chemist for some miles, this would prove extremely effective.
After all, if the Chemist can choose not to serve me – then I can choose to buy all my products somewhere else.
If it is the only chemist in the area, then one merely boycotts all non prescription goods (soap, creams, brushes etc.) which can be purchased as easily at the local supermarket.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I think we do need to complain. But the people to complain to are the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. They are the licensed body that determines what pharmacists can and can’t do. They have a code of conduct that specifically approves this kind of behaviour. Unless we get that changed, then we’re huffing and puffing to no effect.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:38 am
“The code of ethics put in place by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists via a conscience clause the right to refuse.”
Oh no. Conscience is subjective. This needs to be struck.
Civil law and code trumps personal beliefs, and should be strongly defended. No trickle of special exceptions.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
This issue is bigger than religious nuttery.
I was aware Pharmacists had some degree of discretion when selling over-the-counter drugs but if a drug has been prescribed by a GP then surely the Pharmacist should be legally obliged to dispense it without conscience opt-outs. It’s a health issue. If a Pharmacist refused to dispense my wife’s life saving prescription drugs I would be mighty pissed off.
Pharmacists should not be at liberty to veto a GP’s professional judgement. Not ever or for any reason, religious or otherwise.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
We should encourage Scientologists to take up the profession. Once a few stores stop selling all drugs such as antidepressants etc they would surely have to rethink.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Does this power of conscience inspired discretion extend to vegetarians? Would Lloyds find it acceptable for a vegetarian employee (or Jewish or Muslim for that matter) to refuse to dispense Porcine Insulin?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
The problem are not religious employees. Employers are. Would you hire a ignorant person to teach an advanced rocket science, or a paraplegic in a ballet? No because those persons have disabilities that prevent them from performing such jobs.
The case we are dealing with is similar: persons with these particular ideas cannot perform their jobs properly so they should not be hired in the first place. It is very easy to solve.
If a pharmacy refuses to sell what you need just go somewhere else, never return and publicize that fact, so that other people take the same measure. Management would probably notice the problem and correct it.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
It’s interesting to contrast this UK so-called ‘code of ethics’ with Central Europe, where pharmacists, like doctors, swear the Hippocratic Oath when they qualify at university.
20 years ago a relative of mine had his shop burnt down by an angry mob – his ‘crime’ was that, by his reasoning, having sworn that oath he was morally obliged to dispense prescription drugs to gypsies.
These guys, by comparison, are not fit to be in the profession.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
190 Duke Street, Sheffield – 0114 275 9573
I’ve tried phoning to see if I can pick up my wifes contraceptive pill.
No answer I’m afraid will try again later.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Strictly speaking chemists do have some legitimate rights to refuse such as if they are aware that some combo of drugs the customer would be taking is medically dangerous (it is one reason they have the training they do, to know about drug interactions). In such cases they should explain both to the customer and to the prescribing doctor(s). Refusing because they don’t believe contraception is morally right should be out.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
When I go to the chemist for my lady pills, I do not expect to be interrogated by would-be detectives. When asked if I am “taking any other medication”, I reach for one nostril, snort suspiciously and wink. If they ask anything personal, I offer to show them my fanny. If a pharmacist offered me moral advice I would respond with some choice advice of my own. If I were to be refused a “morning after pill”, I should buy one elsewhere and boycott said pharmacy.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I have a question – provocative if you like – that derives from Erp’s comment above (since my wife is a licensed pharmacist in the United States, I have a a degree of personal interest).
There is, I submit, a distinction between a contraceptive and the morning-after pill, which would trouble some pharmacists (mostly on religious grounds, but some agnostic pro-lifers like Nat Hentoff do exist). A pharmacist, like a physician, had an obligation to preserve life. To dispense a drug that is intended to end it (the child in the womb) would seem to run counter to the Hippocratic Oath. I appreciate that most readers here won’t accept my premise, but it’s a little hard to dismiss it as the preoccupation solely of “religious nutters.”
Put another way, would a pharmacist who had grounds for thinking that someone with a legitimate prescription intended to use the drugs in question to, say, commit suicide, should they refuse to dispense? Many people, I think, still see pharmacists as retailers of drugs about which they have very limited knowledge (at least compared to doctors). Actually, they often know far more because their training is focused on drug effects and interactions.
To say a pharmacist has no freedom of action in the matter seems very dangerous. What they do need to convey in such a situation is WHY they are refusing and – I concede reluctantly – to refer the patient elsewhere. To say that you can’t exercise your conscience on a subject as profound as human existence if you’re a professional is rather alarming. I’m not sure that driving people with religious convictions out of such occupations will really improve the situation; occasionally those same convictions bring with them pastoral gifts that are also a part of the work of healing.
Just thought I would offer an alternative viewpoint.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
There is a scene in my book, “Tales of Two Hypnotists”, in which a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills on religious grounds, and the protagonist beats the shit out of him. What makes the scene realistic (believable) is that the pharmacist is a Jehovah’s Witness who is reluctant to file assault charges because he knows how much juries hate nutjobs who kill their children by withholding lifesaving medical procedures. In the case of a pharmacist who belongs to a mainstream god cult, it is not a response that can be recommended.
March 11th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
The sickest part of this is that some people who use the “birth control pill” are NOT USING IT FOR BIRTH CONTROL, and they would be denied, too! I’m infertile anyway. I’ve got PCOS and a clotting factor that would make the chances of me being able to carry a kid to term slim-to-none without major intervention, and sorry, but I don’t believe in “divine intervention” for this. (I don’t want kids anyway, so it works out.)
I use the pill as a hormone regulator because my hormones are horribly messed up, which results in painful cysts, irregular cycles, and other health problems. I’m on the pill for hormone therapy, NOT for contraceptive purposes. And these people would deny me MEDICINE that I need for my HEALTH because of their ludicrous belief that they can impose their religion on others???
Give me a break.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Jeremy Bonner, “The child in the womb”? The morning after a split connie or a drunken romp? You need to brush up on your biology mate.
Also it is very clear that if a pharmacist advises against using two types of medicine that will cause adverse effects when mixed, he/she is doing their job in a competent and proffessional manner. A pharmacist who refuses to do his/her job because they have a head full of God crap should be fired, and that goes for idiots who refuse to handle pork or alcohol products.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
If someone fails to provide you with baby preventing pills here is my suggested response:
“Well, I don’t believe in invisible leprechauns…but I have absolutely no problem giving them to others.”
Then you proceed to throw invisible leprechauns at the individual. With any luck they will recognize that you are not quite right in the head and realize that preventing you from raising a child is in the best interest of everyone.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
@Jeremy Bonner
Further to what Stony said, I think you are being mischievous using the term “child in the womb”. Contrary to popular misconception, a fertilized zygote does not reach the Uterus and become viable for 4 days post coitus. Further, it is more than TWO WEEKS until male genetic material becomes part of the developing blastocyst.
I do not accept your point about Pharmacists. I agree they may know more about pharmaceuticals than doctors but they know nothing of the patient’s medical history and are not qualified to prescribe medicine other than simple otc products. That’s the job of the doctor.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Oh, how I hate the phrase: We take (our) patients’ (substitute: clients’, customers’, passengers’ etc.)concerns (substitute: safety, health, comfort etc.) very seriously.
I hope the two women gave hell to the dispensers. I reckon they are dispensable.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I consider capital punishment barbaric, subhuman and unspeakably evil. It follows that I would not accept a position on an executioner’s staff. I might demand that the government abolish such an abomination, but I would not accept employment as an enforcer and then refuse to carry out the terms of my employment. Similarly, if I considered it a violation of my brainwashing to serve anchovy and pineapple on the same plate, I would not accept employment in a pizzeria. I have utter contempt for persons who choose to work in an occupation that requires them to provide a legal service to the public, and then refuse to fulfill the terms of their employment contract. But I reserve my greatest outrage for the lawmakers and government agencies that allow them to do so.
In America an individual who attempts to impose the laws of a foreign nation (the Vatican) on the American people by passing anti-abortion laws that violate the First Amendment is guilty of treason. That the godphuqt refuse to prosecute such offenders does not change the reality that any action designed to benefit a foreign power to the detriment of the USA conforms to the legal definition of treason.
It should not be a crime merely to believe that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, or that the earth is flat, or that contraception violates the dictates of the most totalitarian Sky Fuhrer in all fiction, or that a medical procedure involves moral considerations. But a person who considers the abortion of a pre-human tadpole with zero brainwave activity indicative of human thought morally equal to the killing of a self-aware sentient being is incapable of telling right from wrong. In much of the world that is the legal definition of insanity. Any nontheist who thinks that abortion unnecessarily hurts a nonconsenting victim (the only sane definition of immorality/wrongdoing/sin) should consider a course in Logic 101.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
whats next eh? Jehovahs witness doctors refusing blood tranfusions?! this is part of an orchestrated campaign by religious groups to undermine our freedoms…send them back to the desert and the middle ages where they belong!
March 12th, 2010 at 2:54 am
Shortly after we were able to buy the morning after pill over the counter, me and Mrs B had an “accident”. I took the following day off work and we went together and sorted it out no problem. I can’t imagine a pharmacist around here refusing a perfectly reasonable request. With all the druggies and chavs they see, the last thing they want is for a potential nutter to kick-off in their shop. We would have stood on the pavement outside and picketted their customers. I’ve threatened other businesses with such action and they don’t like the embarrassment.
I’ve said it before. Don’t employ religiots. My business doesn’t have any.
March 12th, 2010 at 3:31 am
“I don’t want the pharmacist to lose her job but I think that if she’s going to be a pharmacist she shouldn’t expect people to accept her religion.”
I’m 3,325 miles away, and I do. The pharmacy should fire, on the spot, any employee who denies a customer what is legally their right to have.
If your idiotic beliefs prevent you from doing your job, then leave.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Jeremy Bonner, your distinction between contraception and the morning after pill is completely false (eg look up how an IUD works) but even more false is your attempt to equate it with abortion. A quick check of your blog reveals you to be a highly educated and articulate person so I’m a little surprised.
As for Pharmacists knowing about drugs, and no disrespect to your wife, that may well be true for non-prescription items but I think the idea that a Phrmacist should carry a veto against the diagnosis and prescription of a qualified doctor is ludicrous and dangerous.
I submit your warped moral thinking in this matter is a result of your religious background.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@Mr. J. Bonner. Sir, how can the morning-after-pill be classified as an abortion pill? It is only a just-in-case pill. No fertilization may have taken place. I don’t think you have thought this through properly, Sir.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@slowbutrational Actually a chemist should be able to raise a red flag on a drug prescription and require a double check with the doctor and fully informing the customer of the possible problem. It is a backup for a doctor possibly overlooking some aspect of the patient’s medical history (especially if the customer is seeing multiple doctors but only has one chemist) or not being aware yet of some adverse drug interactions. Also doctors do sometimes make mistakes.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
If it is company policy to allow religious discrimination in this way, because the customers who were refused their proscription were discriminated against on religious grounds, then the company should provide additional staff prepared to dispense these drugs that are legally prescribed.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
omg, the same thing happened to me a few years ago and i went mad – im a married woman with children and it disgusted me that a much younger girl had built themselves up to ask for the morning after pill and was refused!!!!! I can`t believe in Britain we are forced to abide by others religions and LLoyds should employ people on the understanding that the morning after pill IS allowed in this country – mind you, Lloyds chemists are a joke anyway, I actually came on her looking for a telephone number to complain about out local branch whos staff need a damn good kick up the backside.