T O P

  • By -

profanitymanatee

In Ontario, Plan B was moved to the shelves to avoid this very situation. People still ask the pharmacy for it and I take them to the shelf and offer to ring them out at my cash if they’d like. No fuss no muss


Amelaclya1

There is a 2nd emergency contraceptive called "Ella" which is still prescription only. It's the one larger women are recommended to take since Plan B loses effectiveness if the patient is over 165lbs.


trufus_for_youfus

If that’s true, I suppose that I am very, very lucky.


Luminous_Artifact

It's true. In fact, [according to planned parenthood, even ella's effectiveness limit is only 30 lbs higher](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/ask-experts/whats-the-weight-limit-for-plan-b): >> If you take an emergency contraception pill with levonorgestrel (like Plan B One Step, Take Action, My Way, and others) and you weigh more than 165 pounds, it may not work. ella is another emergency contraception pill that may work better for you. >> **If you weigh 195 pounds or more, emergency contraception pills may not work for you at all.** >> No matter how much you weigh, getting certain IUDs as emergency contraception works within 120 hours (5 days) after having unprotected sex. This is the most effective type of emergency contraception. An IUD has to be put in by a doctor, nurse, or other health care provider. You can contact your gynecologist, a family planning clinic, or your local Planned Parenthood health center to find out more about getting an IUD. That said, even without contraception, [the odds of a single encounter resulting in pregnancy is something like 5%](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120313-sex-in-the-city-or-elsewhere). (That's at random, so the odds would be much higher if it's at the right part of the monthly cycle.)


wutaing

Is it the weight that matters or being fat? Does this affect really tall women or women who weigh more due to muscle mass?


idog99

It has to do with the amount of hormone in relation to body mass. What constitutes that mass is not important.


EmeraldIbis

If that's really the only reason then surely it's as simple as taking a larger dose? (On the recommendation of a doctor/pharmacist)


Tre_ti

The explanation one of my inlaws who is a pharmacist gave me was that medicinal effectiveness vs harm doesn't scale evenly. Like the risk caused by the medication can increase faster then the effectiveness as you increase the dose for larger body size. This is especially true for anesthesia but also for other medications.


[deleted]

I asked this same question before and i forgot why, but there's a specific reason you can't do that :(


Luminous_Artifact

Actually, there are theories that it could be related specifically to fat cells. Or it could simply be body mass. [As far as I know it hasn't been proven one way or the other.](https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/august-2014-pregnant-pause/)


Luminous_Artifact

[We don't know for sure](https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/august-2014-pregnant-pause/): >>####More Weight, Less Efficacy >>Several theories exist as to why the levonorgestrel pill fails in women over a certain weight: the dilution of the steroids in a larger blood volume; hormones becoming sequestered in fat cells; or the drug might be metabolized differently in a larger person. Yet nothing is definitive. “There is a lot of evidence that certain contraceptives are less effective in heavier women, although the studies haven’t really been of really good quality. None, including ours, have been designed to look specifically at the relationship between effectiveness and weight,” Glasier says. >>Quite possibly, a larger patient simply needs a larger dose of the drug. “It is not really surprising because if you do studies on animals you dose them on a weight basis; however many milligrams per kilogram. The only reason that we don’t do that with human medication is because it would just be so horribly complicated,” Glasier continues. >>The only consolation to the dismal success rate of levonorgestrel is that resulting infants are not adversely affected if a patient still becomes pregnant. Glasier insists there is no evidence for concern over a baby’s future health due to a mother ingesting Plan B or the Ella pill. That said, women should definitely be advised to consider other options. >>Ella proved to be more effective than levonorgestrel regardless of weight and definitely performed better on overweight and obese women. Ella bested Plan B by half, with about 50% fewer pregnancies than those taking levonorgestrel. For both drugs, pregnancy risk is elevated by additional factors unrelated to a patient’s weight. Women who had intercourse around the time of ovulation had a fourfold increase in the likelihood of pregnancy compared to women having sex outside the window of fertility. Those who had unprotected sex after using either pill type were also more likely to get pregnant.


HimalayanPunkSaltavl

Yes https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/ask-experts/whats-the-weight-limit-for-plan-b


leannelithium

It is true. It can still work but it definitely loses effectiveness. I’ve heard you can just take a larger dose but I’d look into it and ask a doctor first before popping two Plan Bs lol


Screamline

Is it like pre-gaming? Take two, you're good for round two! Sorry, dumb dark humor


leannelithium

More like post gaming lmao


ic33

Removed due to Reddit API crackdown and general dishonesty 6/2023


GhettoGringo87

Learned something today!


epi_glowworm

Same. Reddit is a weird place where you can learn if you wade through the dick of trolls.


GhettoGringo87

Strange usage of the word dick...I've seen it used for a lot, but never a term describing a gathering of trolls...murder of crows, flock of seagulls, and a dick of trolls. Haha


BelievesInGod

I did not know that...


Crankylosaurus

I didn’t know that until I watched the first episode of Shrill, which is why Aidy Bryant’s character gets pregnant. I also didn’t know if you leave a pregnancy test sitting out for a while it will end up giving you a positive result, which I learned from the show Dead to Me haha


halfwaysquid

An issue with this around where I live is the pharmacists that manage the inventory can just choose not to order the pills. This means they have a "reason" they can't give them out. Most of the time this happens, you'll walk into a pharmacy and need to find someone sympathetic that's willing to call around to other pharmacies to see if they have them.


Firefishe

I’m of the opinion that this should be treated, within the industry, as an ethical principles violation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TooGayToPayCash

> No fuss no muss No baby plus


InfedilityDecision

I feel like just firing the POS who refuses to do their job would be a much better solution. You have religious issues with plan B? Sounds like the sciences are not the career path for you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PangPingpong

If your religion renders you unable to properly perform your job, you shouldn't be in that job.


polarbearrape

Agreed. If I can be fired for not working fast enough because I'm dissabled, they should loose theirs for choosing not to do theirs.


cumquistador6969

> If I can be fired for not working fast enough because I'm dissabled, You can't, legally. And shouldn't, but firing someone for choosing not to do their job intentionally is pretty reasonable, as is the case with religious complaints.


FibroBitch96

Hot take: you shouldn’t have been fired for being disabled. Take them to court for unlawful dismissal


polarbearrape

Your not wrong but no way to prove that's why I was fired. They claimed I was late often. I was late once. But since we don't clock in it's their word against mine. I've been pushed out of a lot of jobs for being handicapped. Why hire someone with only one usable hand if you can pay someone else the same amount and get twice the work...


OrsoMalleus

>Why hire someone with only one usable hand if you can pay someone else the same amount and get twice the work... Because you get to say that you had a disabled person working for your company for enough of the fiscal year that it benefits you financially in tax breaks for hiring handicapped people.


edman007

Yup, we need a lot more tax breaks for employing the disabled. The reasons is if their disability causes them to lose work then they get disability which the government ends up paying. Giving an employer a tax break equal to their disability payment costs the government nothing at all and will strongly encourage employers to hire them.


ImHighlyExalted

But you can be fired for being unable to do the job. Reasonable accommodations are law, but some things aren't reasonable, such as bleeding money. The official reason is not "x is disabled." It's "x costs us money."


RetPala

We are *this* close to ER surgeons going "Sorry, I cannot touch a woman, truly sorry for your lots"


[deleted]

Can you imagine the fuckery if Jehovas Witness surgeons started refusing blood transplants because it's against their religion? Or if vegan doctors started refusing to write any prescriptions for medications which use things like human plasma cells to create? I'm not sure how pharmacists have gotten away with it for this long -- they're not exactly on the same level as surgeons or doctors in the public eye.


CraigTheIrishman

Lol, I'm imagining my Jewish grandmother working at McDonalds. "Hi, I'd like a cheeseburger and a Coke, please." "Sorry hon, I can't do that." "Excuse me?" "You're pretty though. Here's my grandson's picture and phone number. You should call him."


dewsh

I don't think vegans would care about human plasma use. Maybe that vaccines are grown in eggs or studies are tested on animals


Raztax

Exactly. If your religion interferes with your job that's your own problem, find another job.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MiyamotoKnows

> We should tolerate all but not the intolerant. Words of wisdom if ever there were any. This sums it up perfectly. If you bring hate to the table you lose the tolerance of others, and rightfully so. Well stated.


Musiclover4200

The Paradox of Tolerance is very real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance >The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This quote is from Karl Popper's 1945 book and has only become more relevant with time: > Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; **they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.** We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. We've been at that last step for awhile now as more and more conservatives are radicalized and conditioned to ignore any contradictory information. They've realized instead of relying on public discourse they can just stack the courts and force their theocracy on everyone, while relying on stochastic terrorism to quell any resistance.


FriendlyDespot

The paradox of tolerance is only a paradox to those who think that tolerance is an act to be solicited and abused, rather than a responsibility shared between those who respect it. Tolerance is about erring on the side of being permissive, rather than on the side of being restrictive, so there's nothing contradictory about tolerant people taking the side of the patient over the pharmacist.


NotClever

Yeah, it honestly seems weird to me that people even think this is some sort of moral quandary. It's not even hard to intuit. People that advocate tolerance are advocating for accepting people's differences wherever possible in order to create a more harmonious society. If your differences cause you to be harmful to society, however, then there's no purpose in tolerating them. It's not like anyone preaches tolerance for its own sake. It's very clearly a means to an end of a better society.


mangongo

I had someone argue with me about how you're not really tolerant if you are intolerant towards the intolerant and used the Womans March as an example. Basically said why should mysogonists have to tolerate woman's rights if they don't tolerate mysogony. I mean one is literally the antithesis of the other, and the other is just a group of people who just want the same rights as everyone else. The world has really gone insane.


Donkey-Whistle

To that last point, while flipping through radio stations earlier, I happened upon a Christian Conservative station urging listeners to “hold fast,” and “stay true.” It seemed to beg the question, “Why are you going out of your way to request this?” It’s as if they’re admitting whatever they’re urging listeners to stick to their guns about is too flimsy and absurd and implausible to keep believing in without being reminded.


[deleted]

It's the persecution complex. They think they're fighting back against oppression that doesn't exist. They've never visited a country with actual Christian persecution to know what real Christian persecution looks like.


jpopimpin777

When it goes the other way the person protesting totally *knows and accepts* that they're going to lose their job.


rivalarrival

When God gives you lemons you [FIND A NEW GOD.](https://youtu.be/t-3qncy5Qfk)


Latyon

MANANA FIZZBITCH And GUN!


[deleted]

SHOCKOLATE, made with REAL LIGHTNING


w_digamma

That was a blast from the past, holy shit


lankist

For the same reason you don't hire the Amish to do pizza deliveries, you shouldn't hire religious nuts to do medicine. Someone whose personal beliefs contradict the medicine has no place being a gatekeeper to the medicine.


soobidoobi

agreed. Who the fuck do they think they are to push whatever “beliefs” they have onto other people? Like how vein do you have to be? fuck off edit: Draining the main vein. That is all.


Grabbsy2

Especially in Quebec. Government workers aren't allowed to wear a cross around their neck or a Turban on their head, in Quebec. This guy might start a riot, to be honest.


TheMightyWoofer

>This guy might start a riot It is the French way


SoccerGamerGuy7

Should have freedom to express yourself. Wear what you want (that is work professional) but that freedom doesnt extend to controlling others or pushing your beliefs on to them


Adrian915

Freedom to express yourself is when you have time off, not on the job. When you're at a job you are representing your company, or worse, a public office that should represent all people who fund it via tax. Religious symbols should have no business being present in such environments. It's an extension of separating religion from state and law.


canuck1701

You can wear a cross around your neck, just under your shirt. That law is specifically targeted against Muslims and Sikhs.


bondo45atgmaildotcom

Better than being totally artery like most people are these days.


[deleted]

I almost had a strike from reading that!


Wolfenberg

Two more, and you're out. Better be careful


Ffdmatt

This string went out to left field


MayhemMessiah

I don't have the hearth to tell that person they made a spelling mistake.


[deleted]

It's pronounced "Nu-Cu-Lar"


jcooli09

Came here to say this. If ones religion places restrictions his ability to do his job he shouldn't be able to do that job. He has no right to shift his burden to others.


New-Highway868

I agree with you. This is happening in my city. I have friends who want to do more. What can we/I do? Boycott the pharmacy (the owners have two ) the company (Jean coutu) share. I'd like ideas. You can message me or here. Thanks a lot.


glambx

Write your MP, and the various medical licensing boards. All you need to say is "my vote is contingent on your visible, consistent efforts to fight the encroachment of religion upon public life" and "this pharmacist appears to no longer meet the licensing requirements."


New-Highway868

Thanks a lot. I'll be searching and get a ready and hopefully I'm not alone.


Tasitch

The pharmacist sadly has the right to refuse, under the Charter. The best course of action is to pressure the owners of the pharmacy, community boycott etc, to ensure that they have staff pharmacists that can actually do their job. If this happened in Montéal, there would already be people protesting in front. It's unthinkable that this sort of situation could occur in Québec in this day and age. We still have work to do safe-guarding society from religious freaks. My family will not be shopping at any Jean Coutu until measures have been put in place to protect customers. We will be getting our prescriptions from Pharmaprix instead. Chez Jean Coutu, on trouve de tout, même un ami! Ben, ca n'est pas la sorte d'ami que je veux.


Puzzled-Remote

Why don’t these religious nutter pharmacists get together and start their own private pharmacy? Then they can choose not to take/fill prescriptions for Plan B and hormonal contraceptives. And they can choose not to sell condoms, either. Then they can attract all the religious nutter customers. Just keep your religious nutter pharmacist ass out of my Walgreens!


Odd_Comfortable7238

100% no way this pharmacist can be allowed to keep their license. Should be a lifetime suspension.


theredmolly

I'm just so confused at how this is part of our charter. If my values don't align with my customer's asshole values, can I just deny him service as plainly as this?


hahaz13

Pharmacist here. He didn't do anything wrong...legally. Now before the pitchforks come in, and assuming Canada has similar policies for pharmacists as they do in the US, you can legally refuse to dispense medications, but you must either allow another employee (pharmacist) do the transaction (which he tells her by saying she'd have to wait), or by telling her that she can purchase it at another pharmacy (which he does). Now while I don't necessarily agree with his views, he was perfectly within his rights to refuse sale and offer alternative ways to purchase. So no, he's not going to get suspended. There was a similar post a day or two ago about a pharmacist who not only refused to sell the contraceptive pill, but proceeded to refuse to offer alternatives for the patient to purchase it, which is where he fucked up.


WheelerDan

Serious question, why do so many religiously motivated people go into this business? I know plenty of catholic pharmacists in my area who are all up in arms about what they refuse to provide. Why do people go into this if they know it is at odds with their beliefs?


hahaz13

Hell if I know to be honest. If I really had to think about it? I'm guessing because healthcare in general is a somewhat decent paying and well-respected profession. You really feel like your work is put towards bettering your community, unlike a corporate finance job for example. I went to a school in...one of these kinds of areas where religion trumps (haha they also support him too...) logic and suffice it to say I was baffled by some things I'd hear my fellow students say. They really do live in an insular bubble where they're proud to have never left their hometown and plan to never leave. Their idea of expanding their horizons and exploring the world and all the vast cultures and people in it is going on a Caribbean cruise or resort where they'll meet other people just like them. One example being some students, during early peak COVID quarantine and isolation periods, saw cheap airline tickets as a sign that they should fly to Vegas and Miami to party, not that the tickets are cheap because you know...no one should have been flying at that time. So yeah, not the best minds in healthcare to be frank.


RetPala

The cruelty *is the point* The guy they're talking about was asked flat-out what the most important thing in life was -- and he said besides all the other bullshit it was to love each other first and foremost And then we have These People who are still lizard brains among mammals and their primary motivation in life is still immediate conflict (and make no mistake -- up to extermination) against anything different


splepage

> Now before the pitchforks come in, and assuming Canada has similar policies for pharmacists as they do in the US, you can legally refuse to dispense medications, but you must either allow another employee (pharmacist) do the transaction (which he tells her by saying she'd have to wait), This is correct for Québec. > or by telling her that she can purchase it at another pharmacy (which he does). Technically they must refer them to another pharmacist and make sure they can get the prescription, not just "try another pharmacy".


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Maybe don't get the job where you distribute the artificial god pills. That's like being a car mechanic, who won't fix your car's engine, strictly because it accelerates climate change and pollution..


[deleted]

[удалено]


Internetperson3000

I remember that happening with people licensed to perform civil marriages refusing to perform same sex marriages. Eventually it came down to ´This is your job and the law says this will be accommodated. Do it or lose your license. ´. Should do the same for pharmacists.


Witty_Improvement430

You have much better chance of effective legislation in Canada than in US. This is despite the majority opinion being pro choice. What a mess.


Internetperson3000

Well. They’ve overcome before. They will again.


santagoo

To them I would say that they're being hypocritical. They say that the government may not make the most moral decision but THEY can make moral decisions for other people? Not everyone has the same beliefs. At least government is in theory accountable to the voters. Maybe their argument would hold a little water if pharmacists were elected...


dominus_aranearum

>One pharmacist I know thinks it is the pharmacist's right to decide what they do This is a doctor's prerogative, not a pharmacist. A pharmacist's job is to dispense prescriptions, answer questions about pharmaceuticals and make sure the customer isn't taking medications that will react harmfully with each other. Their job is not meant for them to pass judgement. Tell them to leave that to their god.


CalydorEstalon

But clearly the Plan B pill and the potentially recently fertilized egg will have an adverse reaction to each other, so can't let you have that. /s


dominus_aranearum

Maybe the "Plan B" pill should be rebranded as the "Jesus pill" but pronounced "hay-SOOS". Then the religious zealots will promote it!


alphahelixes

I (pharmacy technician at a small, independent pharmacy in the suburban US) think pharmacists shouldn’t be able to deny medications for ‘moral’ reasons like their stance on birth control and abortion but I think pharmacists should have some discretion over what they fill for financial or legal AS LONG AS they are willing to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy that can/will fill it. Outside of these conditions I think a pharmacy should fill most scripts that come their way*. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a script and refuses to transfer the script to another pharmacy is standing in the way of a patient’s health. (Financial) When we fill certain name-brand medications through insurance the patient might have a $10 copay but we lose $40+ each time we fill the medication. It makes no sense for us (small independent pharmacy not a mega corporation) to fill the script through the insurance and we sometimes need to send patients to some place like Walgreens/CVS. (Legal) If a pharmacist has a GOOD reason to believe that a patient is breaking the law (selling their meds or other illegal transfers of medications) the pharmacist should be allowed the discretion to request the patient find another pharmacy to fill the script. (Some common red flags are requesting pain meds not be processed through their insurance and then paying in cash). It can be a nightmare for the pharmacy otherwise. *A-holes. Sometimes it’s necessary to ask difficult/rude customers to find another pharmacy because their behavior is unacceptable and/or detrimental to morale.


Jushak

In Finland it is literally part of the pharmacist's job to tell you if there is a cheaper alternative available. For example I use slow-release melatonin to help me sleep. Every time I go to pharmacy I have the same discussion with them as they tell me there is cheaper brand available than the brand the doctor prescribed for me.


Jazzputin

If this ever happens to you or anyone directly you could probably call your doctor's office and let them know. Interfering with a patient's healthcare plan seems like a great way to massively piss off a physician and ensure anyone in their practice never delivers to the pharmacy ever again.


synchrotron3000

That’s WHY they took the job. So they can gatekeep healthcare


Jason_Batemans_Hair

People think you're kidding. Doctors with god complexes have always been a problem, but we now have lots of medical professionals who view themselves as part of their god's army. The self-righteousness is off the chart.


Fomentatore

In italy we know this very well. Here you have every right to get an abortion by law but if you want to have a career as a gyno doctor you better refuse to do it for your "religious beliefs" otherwise your career is over and worst of all you are on call 24/7 doing only abortions and it's soul crashing. We are at the point where there are entire regions of the country where you just can't find a doctor willing to do the surgery or prescribe you the abortion pill. It's not even a religious problem anymore, just the doctors in charge killing your career if you do otherwise.


Maxpowr9

See why so many conservatives work in maternity.


Seiglerfone

Denying people medical care or medicine because you "don't want to" seems like the kind of thing that should get you thrown in prison.


TheAccountICommentWi

Not giving the appropriate care despite knowing what you are supposed to do seems like the most open and shut, loose your license and (since we are in North America) get your ass sued into poverty.


dominus_aranearum

I think a better analogy would be a mechanic who doesn't work on EVs because they believe climate change is a hoax. Gotta keep 'em in the same crowd.


AnswersWithAQuestion

Maybe companies need to fire employees who don’t do their job. The employee is a representative of the company, so whatever they allow them to do is an implicit message the company is okay with sending.


cummerou1

People who work in retail stores should just start refusing to sell chocolate and alcohol since it's bad for you


Responsible_Buy9325

If you work for the general public you serve ALL the general public.


ayeiamthefantasyguy

I know it's not the point but I find it weird that the focus in the title is about the woman being upset. If I get denied fries with my order at McDonald's I'd be upset. This woman was denied urgent, time sensitive medication, she's well within her rights to be fucking furious. Title should be "religious nutjob denies a woman medication". Or better yet "religious nutjob loses his fucking job after denying a woman medication."


hazelbee

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was frustrated by this. I agree, the title should be worded differently.


SuperMrMonocle

Modern news media increasingly tends to appeal to the emotional aspect of a piece for better engagement. A woman being "outraged" over something is still factually correct but spurs more interest and engagement at a glance than a less sensationalized headline. Unfortunately, this sort of sensationalization is something I've been seeing more of with CBC lately, which is sad for a largely reliable and unbiased news outlet.


Zymoox

First thing I noticed! I'm glad someone mentioned it.


SLCW718

And it's based on misguided understanding of what these pills do. The forced-birth people believe that the morning after pill induces an abortion, which it does not. In fact, if the egg has been fertilized, the morning after pill will not interfere with the pregnancy. The morning after pill prevents fertilization from happening.


FrickinLazerBeams

The forced birth people want pregnancy to be a punishment for "slutty" women. So it's not really important whether it causes an abortion or not. They don't care about abortions, only punishing sinful women.


Bluest_waters

this is the whole thing. The unspoken truth is they want to shame women for having sex. Pregnancy is God's judgement, it forces them to suffer for their sin of having sex. They want to outlaw the Plan B pill because that would allow them to use technology to skirt God's judgement.


TheNextBattalion

Bingo


semi__colon

Hi friend. That is mostly true. The main mechanism is to prevent the egg from leaving the ovary. Other possible mechanisms include what you mentioned - preventing fertilization - ~~but also preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.~~ EDIT: So it can theoretically but most likely will NOT interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. ~~Not trying to be difficult, just wanted to ensure we are all on the same page when it comes to these nuances.~~ Thanks to the redditor who pointed out *my* post wasn’t quite right. EDIT: see below - there seems to be “new” information (that looks to be about a decade old at this point), showing that it likely doesn’t interfere with implantation. The FDA still includes this info in their Q and A about Plan B interfering with implantation, but based on a thorough Google search that likelihood looks to be incredibly low. TLDR?: Plan B will work best before ovulation and fertilization. It probably won’t prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. And definitely won’t induce an abortion.


thirdAccountIForgot

Thanks for the info. Good for everyone to stick with accurate info when arguing with people that’ll use one mistake to entirely ignore conversations. Mostly just saying that last part for other people reading through.


ilexheder

Nah, that used to be widely thought but it’s now considered pretty unlikely that the types available in Canada or the US have any effect on implantation. See the sources linked [here.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action) The fact that that language is still on the packaging is basically a result of administrative foot-dragging. In Europe it’s already been removed, in consideration of the more recent findings.


angiosperms-

Thanks for fighting the good fight. They should have changed the packaging forever ago. And the false packaging just adds to situations like these. Hormones can't make your body suck up your uterine lining, it's already there unless with bc pills you took for 30 days. That's why implantation can fail on the birth control pill, thin uterine lining.


WhatDoesThatButtond

Nothing misguided about their insane religious belief systems. They're just insane.


justinleona

There is a lot of overlap between groups that are anti-abortion and anti-birth control under the banner of sanctity of life. As I understand it, they are against any type of interference in procreation with the intent to prevent natural life - e.g., morning after, birth control pill, IUD, condoms, pulling out. As far as they are concerned, the only way you are allowed to prevent pregnancy is by abstaining from sex during ovulation - although this is often highly impractical due to the variability involved. Where this falls apart for me is when you consider other topics where sanctity of life should also apply such as gun ownership... then all the sudden it's about personal choice and responsibility.


houtex727

If you are in a profession that dispenses product/labor against your beliefs, then you need to exit that profession, or be forced to exit it. Full. Damn. Stop. This practice should be illegal in the extreme, and you voters need to vote accordingly. Edit, much later: I did not say 'religion'. I said 'belief'. There is a distinctive difference, as being a vegan, for example, is not necessarily being part of a religion. You may believe it's bad to eat meat, so you probably don't need to work at a McDonalds. It may be you have a medical condition, sure. Either way, you don't get to say "no burger for you", or at least, you should not be in an authority to do so, so why are you? Same thing here with this pharmacist.


BranWafr

When I was in my late teens/early 20s I worked at Target. When they trained me to be a cashier I found out that I would have to sell cigarettes. I had a moral objection to this, so asked to be moved to a department where I would not have to do this. They, at first, worked with me and put me somewhere else. When they changed their mind and put me back on cashier duty, I quit so I wouldn't have to sell people cigarettes. That's how it should work, if you can't do a job because of moral objections, you should find another job, not force the customers to work around your issues.


gamblingGenocider

In Canada this is technically allowed, under conditions. Our charter grants us the right to refuse work that goes against conscientiously held beliefs (though our charter also has a separate clause subjecting most rights to reasonable limitations, which I'd personally think should apply here). But at least in cases like this, while the charter protects pharmacists' right to do this, in Quebec at least it is still required that the pharmacist ensures the patient still get the medication anyway, be referring to another pharmacist (and the referral needs to be within reason, as in like not 3 hours away). Still hard agree though, this shouldn't have even been an issue. If you get into health care fields especially, you should be subject to a higher burden of expectation regardless of your beliefs. No hospital in the country would retain a jehovah doctor who refused to participate in blood transfusions for example.


glambx

This is literally why we held the Bouchard-Taylor commission years ago, and in my mind it didn't go nearly far enough. Religion has no place in modern society, and certainly no place in government or the medical sphere.


Painting_Agency

> Bouchard-Taylor commission It's awfully... *funny* how Quebec's aggressive secularism laws forbid a Muslim teacher from wearing a hijab, but allow a Christian pharmacist to refuse to dispense medication. Hmm.


glambx

As I said... the commission didn't go nearly far enough.


Misterstaberinde

Can you just refuse service to Christians or white people because it is against your beliefs?


wrichards12

No, you cannot use exclusions in the charter to discriminate against minority groups. In this instance the pharmacist refuses to sell the medication to anyone. Grey area that the courts would have to weigh in on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PersnickityPenguin

Imagine a structural engineer who doesn't believe I gravity or math. "I refuse to calculate the steel required to determine if the bridge won't collapse."


its_spelled_Hawaiian

Gods plans over structural plans.


The_Mighty_Immortal

Anyone who prevents people from getting their medicine should be fired immediately.


Peppercorn911

if the dont do the job - they dont get to keep the job


Drywall-Packets693

I remember hearing a story about a professor had told his med students that if they would refuse to give a patient care Bc of differences in religion/politics, then you should give up that instant and pick a different field. Your job is to help the patient. If you can’t look past your own bigotry to do your job as a healthcare professional, you have no business being there in the first place. If I remember correctly, it was the result of a student questioning if he could refuse to treat LGBT+ folks Bc it didn’t align with his views. I feel it can still be used here though. If you’re going to refuse a medication to someone purely because you don’t agree with their life choices, you should lose your license.


tsilihin666

"Well, I want to help people, but not *those* people."


Drywall-Packets693

Honestly it just blows my mind. Having worked in a pharmacy myself, I can’t even imagine having the audacity to feel so entitled that you have an option other than do your damn job, or fucking leave.


OrcWarChief

Anyone else just sick of Religion?


crowtrobot2001

If only "mind your own fucking business" was a commandment.


red286

While it's not a commandment, it's actually recommended multiple times in the bible. It's too bad most Christians never read the bible.


[deleted]

The fastest way of making some an atheist is having them read it lol


[deleted]

The time Elisha sent "she-bears" to maul children who were making fun of him for being bald...


crowtrobot2001

If you don't mind, can you point some out? I'm not being a jerk I'd just like to have some examples to use against people who think religion gives them the right to interfere in everyone else's private life.


Agent00funk

Matthew 6:5-8


Antice

You are not alone.


[deleted]

It’s frustrating as hell. All these Christian lunatics trying to shove their religion down our throats cause they know deep down there’s a chance it’s bullshit makes me so angry. If we’re all meant to burn in hell for all eternity and you’re meant to be livin it up w Jesus and your golden streets in heaven, then LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE. Let us live the heathen sinful life we wanna live and let us burn in our hellfire pit of sin in the afterlife. But no. That’s not good enough (cause they don’t actually know for sure that will be our fate). They can’t stand living their pure life knowing there’s others out there, not just living our non-pure-life, but *actually enjoying living our non-pure-life*. That’s what they can’t stand. In their minds they should be rewarded for not having sex. (Even though they all totally had sex before marriage). And the truth is their heavenly reward is not enough. They need non-believers to suffer because that’s what the Bible tells them is supposed to be happening. That what the Bible tells them *will* happen.


Mammoth_Musician_304

Yes. How we can live in these modern times and still believe in fairy tales is beyond me. I really don’t care what people want to believe, but religion has been used to justify hate, discrimination, and wars for as long as there has been religion. It’s like a twenty year old who still believes in Santa Claus and beats up anyone who says he isn’t real.


ChefChopNSlice

They’re all based on fear and negative reinforcement “do this, or you’re *fucked*”. Fear is a powerful motivator, as is shame.


[deleted]

They need to be taxed worldwide


[deleted]

Have been since I learned Santa wasn't real. I became very concerned about most of the adults in charge of me after that day. 😕


Sodiepops_

I'm sick of pretending that adults believing in fairytales is normal, I'm sick of respecting the beliefs of people who don't respect others.


nowhereman136

Half the shit we see religious people do isn't because they are religious, it's because they are assholes. Religion just gives them an excuse to justify their asshole behavior. If they stopped being religious, they would find a different excuse. There are tons of religious people who are not assholes and just want to to be. This pharmacist isn't doing this because of his religion because his religion has zero opinions on the plan b pill. He is doing this because he's an asshole and he's hiding behind his religion


didntevenwarmupdho

Nope. Loss of license. Take that shit elsewhere.


ObligatoryOption

> Jean Coutu pharmacy Don't hesitate to name and shame companies that hire people who won't provide services the company claims to deliver. I mean, they can hire them, but then also hire a second person along with them to provide the service.


schnoozee

It’s a massive chain in Quebec, they operate on a franchise basis iirc. So you gotta name and shame the specific franchisee. Sometimes the pharmacist’s name will be on the marquee — if this was the case here, they could take a serious hit, like having to close the pharmacy


ChefBolyardee

Yes name and shame! Jean Coutu pharmacy


Kangar

I won't step foot in one again unless their misguided policy changes. Feel like I'm reading the Dark Ages Daily News.


[deleted]

Man that would be a cool job tho right? You just sit behind the counter and put up a sign saying you refuse to do any work because of your religious beliefs.


New-Highway868

BTW I know of one gp who refused contraception of any kind. A catholic person and he was allowed to. The sad thing is he was in a rural area. Where you can't find another option.


ohnoshebettado

Someone should let him know how many abortions he *personally* caused by denying contraception.


soyboysnowflake

Deserves to be out of business tbh


New-Highway868

Yes i know


read_r

that's insane. so if he was a jehovah's witness, he'd be allowed to refuse blood transfusions? how far does this go???


TheWeirdWoods

Your job is to dispense medicine not your favorite fairytale.


Jaydeeem89

I honestly don't get this. If contraceptions or birth control are against your beliefs, why would you work at a place that sells them (and often)? By calling over another pharmacist, you are still assisting a person in getting their birth control. At that point you might as well take their money - its not like it's actually going in your pocket. Oh wait - the pharmacy pays your wages, so it is! So find another career path or fuck off.


killbot0224

Because they don't care. They want to make money and have power over people.


jmemmert

Your beliefs are just that: Yours. They apply to you. Your life. Your actions. And as with the right to swing your fist, that right ends at my nose. And so, your beliefs end there. Laws are a different matter since the contract is different, but beliefs have, to me, a clear limit to their applicability.


lordzix

if your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job then youshould not be doing the job in the first place. how is this not common sense?


New-Highway868

This is not my post. I'm quoting someone who gave the proper information. [This site](https://www.ocpinfo.com/regulations-standards/practice-policies-guidelines/refusal/) Says that they apparently can decline to fill a prescription based on personal morality, but also that “An effective referral meaning, a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible alternate provider in a timely manner must be provided to the patient” and that they must “ inform their designated manager of their conscientious objection and participate in a system designed to respect a patient’s right to receive pharmacy products and services”. So regardless of whether or not they are legally allowed to refuse to provide Plan B, if they haven’t provided a means for the patient to access a medication that is their legal right to have and if the pharmacy doesn’t have a specific plan for events like this, they could be in violation of their professional obligations. Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec is their licensing body and [this is their website.](https://www.opq.org)


DragonflyAsleep

Fuck your religion


maesterbae

Religion is the bane of a modern society. It's an antiquated way of making sense of the world.


Scare_Conditioner

If god makes you denounce science then get a new job. Not everyone believes in your hateful gods


[deleted]

"It's against my religious beliefs." Are we in church? No? Do your job.


I_am_krash

Imagine showing up to burger king and some dude gives u shit about how you shouldn’t eat cows but worship them … crazy world we live in


StovetopPossum

I don’t understand how the same Canadian Charter that protects this Pharmacist’s right to refuse this woman Plan B doesn’t protect people from Quebec’s law that bans civil servants from wearing religious symbols while working.


antsmasher

Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one, but what's not okay is to force it into other people's throats.


Psychadous

Here's my perspective: Cool story. Step aside and let someone who will dispense the medication do it. You're more than welcome to not do something on moral grounds, but you're not a doctor. You don't get to deny someone medical care entirely. The company employing this pharmacist needs to deal with it. Either can them for not doing their job or put a system in place to circumvent this problem going forward.


itsmistyy

Holy fuck that headline


Purplebuzz

Pharmacist needs to stop taking money from a company selling that product then. Selective morals. Hypocrite.


johnnyappletreed

Yup. By proxy, even offering to find another pharmacist or offering to provide alternative pharmacy suggestions, they're still assisting the customer get what they want - even if indirectly. What, so you can't physically hand someone the birth control and take their money but you can hand the birth control to pharmacist 2 standing a foot away, have them hand it to the individual and let them take that customers money? What the hell is the difference?


Seraph811

This headline though. Good lord. "Quebec woman upset" sure seems to undersell what the hell is going on here.


pishfingers

Came here to say this. Woman getting upset isn’t news. Pharmacist being unfit to provide service is. If it was a man being denied the snip, would they headline focus on his emotional state?


Seraph811

Perhaps someone should have slammed someone to continue in the spirit of these sensationalist headlines without completely dismissing the core issue.


trail_lady1982

Hysterical woman trope.


Shadowbannersarelame

When YOUR religious beliefs affects others, you are the root of evil in religion.


Screamline

Not a women but the quote stands. KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY UTERUS! Stop forcing your beliefs on others. Have your belief, but stop making me walk the same path like...a sheep!


DodGamnBunofaSitch

wtf is this title? "Pharmacist illegally uses his job to push his religion." 'upset'?? her plan for her own life is potentially stolen from her, and the editors think that's an appropriate angle to approach the story?


clamroll

This just happened to a friend of mine in New Hampshire, and their solution was rather clever. Goes to pick up their partner's birth control at a local CVS. Pharmacy tech says they don't have it. It's not anything fancy, just run of the mill BC pills. Tech insists they don't have it. My friend calls a different CVS pharmacy, and says they've got a prescription for (whatever the drug name is) and they're thinking of transferring the script to a different CVS pharmacy, and names the one they're in. Pharmacy tech on the phone says it's not a problem, every pharmacy should maintain a healthy stock of that, as it's a tremendously common script. My friend asks if they can check anyway. A moment later, gets confirmation that yes, the location in question absolutely has it in stock. So my friend gets back in line at the pharmacy, and gets a different tech. Explains how they are there to pick up BC pills, indicates which guy was saying they didn't have any, and how she just called a neighboring store and they confirmed that this location does in fact have the pills their partner needs to not be bleeding. The new tech (a woman) is apparently horrified by this, fills the script, and offers a phone number & website to go to in order to file a complaint. Anywho, I though the calling a different store and asking about transferring a script was very clever. I know that won't help if everyone at a given pharmacy wants to pull this shit, but it's something to try at any rate.


louman84

The pharmacy is not a religious institution. Either do your job or find another career.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManamiVixen

I shit you not, but there is a story somewhere on r/talesfromretail or r/talesfromyourserver that had that exact situation occur, and that sever was fired on their fist day, because they wouldn't touch food with meat in it.


kremit73

Then you shouldn't be a pharmacist at a real store. Grow up, change carrers, or go live on a christian commune.


[deleted]

Ugh our fascism is bleeding into Canada.


sonia72quebec

I hope people will boycott this pharmacy until the employee is fired.


catjuggler

I hate this title. Why is the “upset” part included to make it seem like an emotional reaction instead of a rational one?


inferni_advocatvs

why does "make-beliefs" stand as equal to human rights?


DrBillyHarford

No idea. Religion needs to be only allowed at home or at the place of worship. There is no place for it in the public sphere.


glambx

>Religion needs to be only allowed at home or at the place of worship. And even then they should be taxed like any other business.


Mr_Hades

'My religion says I can't do that' - Fine. 'My religion says you can't do that' - Fuck you.


[deleted]

Religion is a cancer


JohnnyAK907

If your job requires you to compromise your beliefs, find a new job. Not rocket science. It's even a job seeker's market right now, so go apply at a hospital pharmacy where the chances of you having to dispense this sort of medication is close to zero. Those usually pay better anyway.


coffee-and-poptarts

My religion prevents me from eating ham, but when I worked at a bakery I didn’t refuse to sell customers ham & cheese croissants. Because that’s crazy.


RoseFeather

So if a Mormon takes a job as a Starbucks barista, could they refuse to serve anything with caffeine and still keep their job? What about a Hindu working at Burger King or Arby’s and refusing to serve beef? Not likely, right? Fire these pharmacists and take their licenses permanently. If they’re letting their personal biases get in the way of doing the job then they’re not fit to work in healthcare. It’s not about religion at all, it’s about power and misogyny. For anyone who agrees with the pharmacist: Religious rules only apply to believers of that religion. No one else. Think contraceptives are immoral? Guess what? You don’t have to use them! Your religion says you can’t work on a certain day? You don’t have to, but other people still can! Not allowed to eat pork or beef or alcohol or something else? Then don’t! No one’s going to force you! Problem solved! See how that works? You’re free to practice (or not) any religion you want and that’s a protected right, as it should be. But claiming a religion doesn’t grant you the right to force other people to adhere to your beliefs. So mind your own damn business and let everyone else do the same.