Emergency Contraception Refusal Due to Religious Beliefs Leads to Warning for Lloydspharmacy Locum Pharmacist

Date of Decision: September 25, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Refused to supply emergency contraception (EHC) to a patient.
Actions were based on personal religious beliefs.
Failed to offer the patient use of the consultation room, instead discussing the matter in the open pharmacy area.

Outcome: Warning (no finding of impairment)

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Pharmacy professionals must provide person-centred care: Failure to use the consultation room did not respect the patient's dignity.
Standard 7 – Pharmacy professionals must respect and maintain a person’s confidentiality and privacy: Discussing a sensitive issue in a public area showed inadequate consideration of the patient’s privacy.

Case Summary

Allegations

The case revolved around an incident on 24 July 2022, when the registrant, working as a locum Responsible Pharmacist at a Lloyds Pharmacy situated within a supermarket, refused to supply emergency hormonal contraception (EHC), also known as the “morning after pill”, to a patient. The refusal was explicitly based on the registrant’s personal religious beliefs. The central concern was not the refusal itself — which is permissible under GPhC guidance if handled appropriately — but rather how the situation was managed.

The concern was brought to the GPhC’s attention not by the patient, but by a pharmacy dispenser colleague, Ms G, who submitted an online concern form on the same evening of the incident. Ms G alleged the registrant had acted unprofessionally, particularly due to handling the EHC request in the open pharmacy area. Her report triggered a formal GPhC fitness to practise investigation. Another colleague, Ms A, also gave significant testimony during the hearing, which supported the claim that the registrant failed to adequately protect the patient’s privacy and dignity.

Specific allegations included:

The registrant’s refusal to provide EHC to one or more patients.
That this refusal was due to her personal beliefs.
That she failed to signpost the patient(s) to alternative services.
That she informed one patient she would not provide EHC in the open pharmacy area and/or in front of the public.
That she failed to speak respectfully or professionally.

Findings

The Committee found the following facts proved:

The registrant refused to supply EHC to one patient on the basis of her personal religious beliefs.
She informed the patient she would not provide EHC while they were in the open pharmacy area.
She did signpost the patient to Boots pharmacy in Farnham — thus the allegation of failure to signpost was not proven.
There was no evidence the registrant spoke in a disrespectful or unprofessional manner.

The Committee recognised that although the registrant wore a face mask and believed no one was nearby, the pharmacy was in a supermarket aisle, making it highly likely that members of the public could have overheard the conversation.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee carefully considered whether the registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct and, if so, whether her fitness to practise was currently impaired.

While breaches of Standards 1 and 7 were identified — namely failing to protect the patient’s dignity and not adequately reflecting on the open environment for a sensitive conversation — the Committee ultimately concluded that:

The conduct, while falling below professional expectations, did not meet the high threshold of misconduct.
There was no evidence of harm to the patient.
The registrant demonstrated some remorse and reflection, including an acknowledgment that she should have offered use of the consultation room.
The registrant’s conduct was not considered “reprehensible”, “morally culpable”, or “disgraceful”, and did not seriously undermine public confidence.

As a result, the Committee found no impairment in the registrant’s fitness to practise.

Sanction

Despite no finding of impairment, the Committee deemed it necessary to issue a formal warning due to the professional standards breaches. The warning, to remain on the register for 12 months, aims to:

Reinforce the importance of patient privacy and dignity.
Signal to the profession and public that even when conduct does not reach the level of impairment, breaches of GPhC standards will not be ignored.

In its decision, the Committee noted:

“Your conduct fell below these standards and as the public has an expectation that the standards will be adhered to, your conduct must not be repeated.”

The Committee emphasised that when declining EHC for personal reasons, the pharmacist must still prioritise patient care — including clear communication, appropriate signposting, and protecting confidentiality.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Personal Beliefs Must Not Override Patient Care
GPhC guidance allows pharmacists to decline services due to personal beliefs, but only if they ensure patient care is not compromised. This includes immediate and effective signposting and maintaining professionalism throughout the interaction.
Environment Matters
Sensitive matters like EHC requests should not be discussed in public areas. Even if the area appears empty, pharmacists should use consultation rooms or private spaces to safeguard patient privacy.
Use of Consultation Rooms Is a Professional Duty
In pharmacies located in open or shared environments (e.g., supermarkets), the default assumption should be that sensitive consultations require private settings. Not offering a private discussion space is a breach of both Standards 1 and 7.
Reflection and Remediation Are Vital
The registrant’s insight and willingness to improve her practice were considered mitigating factors. Professionals should proactively address any gaps in their practice and provide evidence of learning and behavioural change.
Warnings Serve as Regulatory Signals
Even in the absence of impairment, a warning can be issued to address unacceptable professional conduct. Warnings are public and impact the professional’s reputation and regulatory standing.
Colleague Dynamics Can Escalate Concerns
A key witness, Ms A, and another colleague had strong views on the registrant’s conduct, contributing to the concern being escalated to the GPhC. Effective communication with colleagues about conscientious objections and professional boundaries is critical.

This case illustrates that while pharmacists may exercise conscientious objection, they must still uphold patient rights, privacy, and dignity without exception. Conduct falling short in these areas, even without impairment, may still warrant formal regulatory action.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.