The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7153 p852-856
June 23, 2001

  Medicines promotions
  GlaxoSmithKline
  Monitired dosage systems
  The Profession
  NHS
  Parallel trading
  Dressings
  Checking technicians
  Code of Ethics
  SGM
  Onlooker
  The Journal

Code of Ethics

If you can’t stand the heat ...

From Dr B. L. Furman, FRPharmS

I find interesting, but confusing, the continuing debate surrounding the Code of Ethics in relation to pharmacists who feel unable to supply services because of “their religious beliefs or personal convictions” (PJ, June 9, p784). Pharmacists are, of course, entitled to hold and express their own views on contraception, abortion, emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) or anything else. However, unless one subscribes to the school of “ethical egoism”, questions must be asked when actions arising from these views impact on the lives of other people and have the potential to do harm. In my view, a pharmacist who refuses to help a patient is acting unethically. It is difficult to understand how referring the patient to another pharmacy can be regarded as an ethical alternative. Sending the patient to another pharmacy for EHC causes her extra distress at a time when she is already, at the very least, extremely anxious. One can also imagine a number of scenarios where the referral to another pharmacy might result in the patient passing the time point at which EHC is likely to be effective and/or where the resulting pregnancy might threaten the well-being of both mother and fetus. I also find it difficult to understand how referral to another pharmacy can be reconciled with a pharmacist’s personal conscience in relation to the supply of advice on, for example, EHC. By sending the patient to another pharmacy, the pharmacist is indirectly procuring for that patient advice on EHC and must, therefore, be “guilty”, at least of conspiracy.

The Code of Ethics also states that there must be no condemnation or criticism of the patient. If the patient asks why no advice is forthcoming, the answer must rest on the argument that, in the opinion of the pharmacist, EHC is wrong. I fail to understand how this could ever be expressed in a non-condemnatory manner.

I do not accept that professionals can pick and choose those aspects of practice with which they are personally comfortable. Do we allow pharmacists who hold “anti-vivisectionist” views to refuse to supply any medicine that has been developed using animal experiments?

There are several career paths in pharmacy that are much less likely to bring a pharmacist directly into contact with dilemmas relating to contraception and abortion and those pharmacists who feel uncomfortable should be encouraged to pursue other career paths or change profession.

Brian Furman
Glasgow

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Checking technicians)
Next Topic (Special General Meeting)
Send your letter to The Editor