New guidelines by the regulating body for pharmacists in the UK mean that Christian pharmacists could face the 
sack if they refuse to sell the morning-after pill.
Many pharmacists have conscientious moral objections to dispensing ‘emergency contraception’ and have in the past refused to do so because the drugs can work as abortifaecients.
In Ireland, the Code of Conduct of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland does not recognise the right of pharmacists not to sell the morning-after-pill. The Code nowhere acknowledges the right of conscientious objection.
Similar guidelines circulated last week in the UK by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will effectively strip these pharmacists of their right to object on religious grounds to handling such drugs. Many Christian, Jewish and Muslim pharmacists object to the drugs.
Under the new rules, pharmacists will be obliged to refer a customer to a specified chemist who is willing to distribute the pills and should also ring ahead to check that the product is in stock. This again is similar to the situation in Ireland.
The guidance will also compel pharmacists to make drugs available for IVF, to which some object because of the high numbers of embryos created then destroyed in the process.
The guidelines say that pharmacists’ right to conscientious objection on religious grounds is secondary to the contractual demands of employers, such as the NHS.
When applying for a job, the guidelines say pharmacists should inform their potential employer of any moral objections they may have to the morning-after pill..
The new guidelines follow cases in which staff working in chemists have been criticised but have kept their jobs after refusing to dispense emergency contraception on religious grounds.
Anna Sweeting-Hempsall, a Catholic hospital pharmacist from Sunderland, said the new guidance “forces pharmacists to act against their consciences” and would cause legal conflicts between staff and employers.
She said: “Now the employers have the right to impose any contractual obligations that take precedence over the right of conscience.
“The need to notify people beforehand makes you virtually unemployable,” she said.
“Anybody who values the sanctity of life from the moment of conception will be forced from the profession.”
The regulator produced the guidelines to explain how a pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection should be interpreted. All pharmacists are accountable to the GPhC and must be able to explain their actions in the context of the regulator’s guidance.
However, the GPhC said the document was “not mandatory” and was open to review after one year. “Our guidance is advice for pharmacy professionals and explains how our standards might be met, or provide additional suggestions for practice,” a spokeswoman said.
Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, who specialises in religious discrimination law, said that the guidance was flawed.
“What many people do not seem to grasp is the fact that if you are refusing to do something because it is morally objectionable you cannot be obliged to recommend someone else,” he said. “If they (the GPhC) accept that a person has a right to conscientious objection they cannot take it further than that.”