The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7154 p888-891
June 30, 2001

  Medicines promotions
  Primary care pharmacy
  Diabetes
  Veterinary medicines
  Mutual recognition
  Code of Ethics
  Checking technicians
  Disillusioned youth
  Martindale

Code of Ethics (2 letters)

What is the “conscience clause” for?

From Dr I. Stockley, FRPharmS

In the introduction to the new Code of Ethics of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (PJ, April 28, p589), Bill Darling, the chairman of the ethics working party, wrote this explanation under the heading of the “conscience clause”: “Pharmacists having conscientious objections can therefore refuse to provide certain services, but this must be balanced against employer’s rights to determine the services provided by the business. Protection against discrimination in employment is provided for in employment legislation.”

This is not actually a part of the Code of Ethics, but it does tell us the way the working party was thinking. It seems to be saying that a conscientious objection comes with a possible price tag, and if an employer does not respect our consciences and discriminates against us in any way, the protection is to be found within employment legislation (and by implication not within the Code of Ethics).

Does this therefore mean that the “conscience clause” in the new code does not in fact give pharmacists any real, practical support ? If so, what is it for? Or have I misunderstood what Bill Darling is saying?

Ivan Stockley
Loughborough, Leicestershire

What do we mean by “help” and “patient”?

From Mr R. B. A. Johns, MRPharmS

Dr Brian Furman asserts, quite correctly, that “a pharmacist who refuses to help a patient is acting unethically” (PJ, June 23, p856). However, at the risk of sounding pedantic, I suggest that much depends on what we mean by “help” and “patient”.

A patient is someone suffering from a disease, which pregnancy is not. Moreover, when a woman wishes to obtain emergency contraception, neither she nor anyone else can be sure whether she is pregnant, in which case the unnecessary administration of a potent steroid could itself be considered unethical.

Therefore we are not discussing medication, but a convenience drug to avert the possible (not certain) need for an abortion later on. So are we really “helping” that woman, or merely turning a quick buck by encouraging her to evade the consequences of an unprotected sexual encounter?

I do not seek to moralise: I merely suggest that true help may be better provided by someone other than a pharmacist, whose ethical position is not as straightforward as it might at first appear.

R. B. A. Johns
Boston, Lincolnshire

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Mutual recognition)
Next Topic (Checking technicians)
Send your letter to The Editor