The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7151 p784-787
June 9, 2001

  Code of Ethics
  RPM
  Medicines promotion
  Parallel imports
  Patient packs
  Disillusioned youth
  Veterinary medicines
  Travel medicine
  Nurse prescribing
  Working conditions
  Mutual recognition
  Disinfection techniques

Code of Ethics

Re-examination necessary

From Mr R. H. Higson, MRPharmS

The complete change that has taken place in clause A.1(k) of the revised Code of Ethics will, I believe, deeply concern many members. The original revised clause (PJ, March 10, p325) stated “where [pharmacists] feel unable to provide a service because of their religious beliefs or personal convictions they do not condemn or criticise the patient and advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested” is now “before accepting employment pharmacists must disclose any factors which may affect their ability to provide services. Where pharmacists’ religious beliefs or personal convictions prevent them from providing a service they must not condemn or criticise the patient and they or a member of staff must advise the patient of alternative sources for the service requested.”

If this is to replace the “conscience clause”, it has become ambiguous. First, what about pharmacists already in employment? Are they under the jurisdiction of the old code of ethics under which they were employed?

Secondly, pharmacists who have a religious belief or personal conviction will be discriminated against, never mind leaving it to employment legislation to sort it out.

Thirdly, what are the “any factors”? Could this refer to any physical disability, or lack of knowledge, lack of a car or current driving licence, inability to speak certain languages, or, for religious reasons, an inability to work certain hours in the day or on certain days of the week?

Fourthly, there has been no explanation why it has been necessary to change the original “conscience clause”; there seem to have been no difficulties previously.

Now that it has been passed by the annual general meeting, it needs to re-examined as a matter of urgency. The conscience clause needs to be changed and clarified. I would suggest that the committee should return to the drawing board and this time not provide its members with any surprises and ensure it gives its members ample time to comment.

Why not change it to:

Limitations of conscience No patient shall be deprived of pharmaceutical services because of the personal convictions or religious beliefs of a pharmacist. A pharmacist may object on grounds of conscience to the dispensing of certain medicinal products for the control of fertility, conception, or termination of pregnancy. In such cases the patient involved must be advised of an alternative source of pharmaceutical supply. No condemnation or criticism of the patient’s requirement should be made and every effort should be made to deal with such a situation in a discreet and confidential manner.

Finally by making this major change in emphasis the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has taken away the right for a pharmacist to object for religious reasons to dispense or supply any medicinal product, which I suspect is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ralph Higson
Wokingham, Berkshire

Next Topic (RPM)
Send your letter to The Editor