Code of Ethics
  SOPs
  Prescribing
  Packaging
  Medicines
  CPD
  Locum pharmacy
  The Profession
  Community pharmacy
  BRM

Code of Ethics

Jeopardising employment

From Ms C. A. Foley, MRPhrmS

It has been stated that the Ethics Working Party had a big response from pharmacists on the issue of the “conscience clause” (PJ, April 28, p589). On one hand it changed the wording appropriately, while it has simultaneously dealt a death blow out of the blue to the future of pharmacists who would refuse to supply certain services by demanding that “before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors which may affect their ability to provide services” (Part 2A.1[k]).

This requirement would effectively render pharmacists who have a conscientious objection to the supply of medicines affecting fertility, conception or termination of pregnancy unemployable. It is argued that “protection against discrimination in employment is provided for in employment leglislation” but this is surely disingenuous (as is the attempt to couple religious belief with mere lack of training). The proposed new requirement effectively singles out certain members of the profession at the selection stage on the grounds of their religious belief; it is analogous to inquiring of prospective female pharmacists what their intentions are with regard to marriage, children and child care.

The requirement would also be challengeable under the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, for example, through Article 14 (discriminatory treatment) taken with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Part 2A.1(i) states that pharmacists “must ensure that they honour commitments to provide professional services unless this is impossible. If they are not able to honour a commitment the pharmacy owner or other responsible person must be informed at the earliest opportunity in order that alternative arrangements can be made.” This statement covers the situation of conscientious objection adequately without jeopardising the employment of many pharmacists.

Secondly the working party has removed the stated right to “object on the grounds of conscience to the dispensing of certain medicinal products for the control of fertility, conception and termination of pregnancy”. Please be reminded that chemicals such as the “morning after pill” are considered to control fertility by many medical associations (including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society) while many pharmacists consider that they are abortifacient and thereby “terminate a pregnancy”. It strikes one as sinister that the new Code of Ethics omits the clear grounds upon which our objection is made with the stated intention of improving clarity and meaning.

It is inappropriate for our Society to accept this revised Code of Ethics with its deliberate discrimination against pharmacists who will not violate the God-given right to life of all human beings from the pre-implantive stage of life to natural death.

True freedom of conscience is the right to know love and serve God without hindrance, the right to practise one's religion and to see that the laws of our country (including our Society's Code of Ethics) defend and uphold it.

Caroline Foley
Brighton, East Sussex

Reasonable approach to EHC provided

From Mr T. J. Scully, MRPharmS

With regard to pharmacy sales of emergency hormonal contraception, pharmacists who are unwilling to provide this service, as a matter of conscience, should be able to make use of the “conscience clause” in the proposed new Code of Ethics and Standards (PJ, April 28, pp589–596). As stated in the revised code, in such circumstances the patient can be advised of alternative sources for the service. This seems to me to be a reasonable way to approach this controversial issue.

Thomas Scully
Germantown, Maryland, United States

Next Topic (SOPs)
Send your letter to The Editor