From conscience clause to demoralisation
The “conscience clause” of the Code of Ethics, Pharmacy
in a New Age, the cost of The Journal's editorial board, the structure
of Council business, the “Shaping the future” regional meetings, the Society's
financial statement, and the problem of demoralised pharmacists were among
the range of topics raised at a discussion forum held immediately before
the Society's annual general meeting on May 16.
Opening the proceedings, the PRESIDENT, Christine
Glover, said that the forum was a new experiment. She hoped it would be
an opportunity for communication and greater transparency, and that it
would be easier to discuss some of the issues that worried members outside
the formality of the AGM.
The sort of issues that might be raised were ones
with which other professions and the health service were having problems
to a greater or lesser degree.
Conscience clause
CAROLINE FOLEY (Brighton) raised the issue of the
revised conscience clause in the Code of Ethics. Despite the generous
consultation period, with two opportunities to respond, the unexpected
appearance of the statement regarding employment — that pharmacists
had to disclose any factors that might affect their ability to provide
services — had come as a great shock. There had been no reference
to this in either of the formal drafts and therefore no opportunity to
object to it. The requirement would effectively render unemployable those
pharmacists who had a conscientious objection to supply medicines affecting
fertility, conception or termination of pregnancy.
It was argued that employment legislation provided
protection against discrimination, but she believed this clause effectively
singled out certain members of the profession at the selection stage on
the grounds of their religious beliefs. It was analogous to enquiring
of a prospective female pharmacist what her intentions were with regards
to marriage, children and child care. The requirement would also be challengeable
under the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights.
There was a clause in the revised Code of Ethics
that stated: “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.” In her opinion, this statement covered the
situation of conscientious objection without jeopardising employment.
BILL DARLING (chairman of the Council's Code of
Ethics working party) said that the revised code recognised and respected
conscience issues. The issue of informing a prospective employer about
such an attitude had been raised many times. One of the key responsibilities
of the code was probity. It was inconceivable that a profession that valued
honesty and integrity should accept that a pharmacist should not disclose
to an employer relevant factors such as an inability to undertake certain
services.
PETER HOUGHTON (professor of pharmacognosy, King's
College London), supporting Ms Foley, said that Mr Darling's words did
not convince him. It was strange that, in a situation of shortage in the
profession, it was possible that several hundred people — perhaps more
— might be unemployable because of their conscience.
GIANPIERO CELINO (North London) said that it would
seem equitable to put in the code an obligation for superintendent pharmacists
to declare how they would respond to candidates who informed them at the
selection stage that they would be unable to provide a particular service
as a result of a conscience or religious objection and, similarly, for
that to be made public.
Pharmacy in a New Age
ASHWIN TANNA (London) said that, following Pharmacy
in a New Age, there had been an upsizing of the expenses of Council and
the Public Affairs Directorate. He believed that PIANA had added an enormous
cost to the Society's expenses. Did the Council therefore believe there
was an urgent need for an independent review of the effect of PIANA on
the workings of the Society?
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR (Ann Lewis) said that
she could not give specific costs, but thought that one of the measures
of PIANA was how similar the pharmacy plan for England was to the aspirations
of the profession expressed through PIANA. The pharmacy plan for England
was being mirrored in plans for Scotland and in Wales but the themes were
consistent.
Answering a question from Mr TANNA about the cost
of the Pharmaceutical Journal's editorial advisory board in the
coming year, the TREASURER (David Allen) said that the cost had been built
into the PJ budget for 2001.
Council business
PETER SCHOFIELD (Cambridge) asked what criteria
were used in deciding which Council business to take in open session and
which in closed session. Were the criteria clearly laid out?
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Council's
open session was open to the press. The closed session was for business
that needed to be reported to the profession in a particular way, probably
where decisions had not been taken, for example, where policy was being
developed or where, for reasons of confidentiality and in the interests
of individuals, it might be necessary to take it into closed business.
The report in The Journal did include the closed session. That
part of the report was an agreed report, whereas the open session was
free for journalists to report as they thought fit.
The TREASURER said that a considerable part of the
Society's income stream was from its publications division and there were
commercially sensitive bits of information that would be in the closed
parts of business and could not be disclosed.
Regional meetings
Mr SCHOFIELD said that he had attended the recent
“Shaping the future” meeting in the Society's Anglia region. He had been
enthused by the meeting and hoped that member would be able to bring something
back into the region. From that he saw the possibility for more democracy
and flow upwards and downwards from the profession in a more acceptable
manner.
NICOLA GRAY (member of Council) said that she had
heard that the Anglia meeting had been constructive, with participants
throwing in lots of new ideas. Similar meetings were taking place in all
regions in England and in Scotland and Wales. The challenge now was to
try to decide how to move on — how to make most of the opportunities that
these plans and local policies and priorities had to offer.
Financial statement
ROGER PHILLIPS (Sutton Coldfield) asked why a detailed
financial statement had not been circulated this year. If members were
not going to receive it, would it be possible to put slightly fuller financial
details into the annual review, and also the budget figures so that members
could compare the budget with what had happened.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the review
of the year had included a statement of accounts. The more detailed statement,
it was true, had not been circulated at the same time, and the Council
would endeavour to do so next year. It had been put on the Society's website.
Mr PHILLIPS asked whether members would receive
the financial statement in the post next year.
The PRESIDENT replied that they would.
Demoralised pharmacists
ALISON STRATH (Scotland) said she had read a humbling
letter in The Journal from a newly qualified pharmacist who was
being demoralised about the profession. How could the Society encourage
and nurture young pharmacists?
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that she too had
been disturbed to read that letter. She hoped that if there were any pharmacists
in the audience in the area of that pharmacist then maybe the local branch
could put in them touch, because he needed support. The profession owed
it to youngsters to make sure they were brought into the profession and
shown the opportunities.
Policy formulation
Another topic raised during the discussion forum
was whether the Society took a position on the recent unconditional withdrawal
by the pharmaceutical industry of a court action in South Africa about
the supply of essential drugs. The PRESIDENT said that the profession
needed wider ranging debate to formulate a policy view on such issues.
The branch representatives' meeting seemed the perfect forum for getting
a feel for what members thought about issues that were less narrowly focused
on pharmacy.
Back to Top
|
