|
· Professional regulation
· Code of Ethics (2)
· The profession (4)
· Community pharmacy (2)
· Multiples
· Accuracy checking
· CPPE (3)
· Medicines use review
· Emergency supplies (2)
· Controlled Drugs
· NHS
· Nutrition
· Fellowship
· The Council
· Retention fees
· Section 60 Order
Letters to the Editor
|
Code of Ethics
New code should be prescriptive and proscriptive
From Mr S. A. Wheatley, MRPharmS
I should like to comment on the draft new Code of Ethics for Pharmacists
and Pharmacy Technicians.
Pharmacy is an exact discipline. The training undergone by pharmacists
instils in us the absolute necessity to be precise and accurate. To support
that ethos we must have in place a Code of Ethics that is both prescriptive
and proscriptive; that is to say, the Code must direct us, in broad terms,
concerning what we can and what we cannot do.
Against that background, I am unable to agree with the direction of travel
adopted in the proposed new code. The recently presented draft form allows
subjective, even cavalier, interpretation of its intentions. The new
code seeks to replace the paternalistic style of the old code by the
promotion of professional judgement and the support of professional discretion.
But professional judgement and discretion derive only from experience
and so, particularly, newly registered pharmacists require specific and
detailed guidance and advice while those attributes are being developed.
Permit me to focus, particularly, on the need for pharmacists not to
work long hours and to have adequate refreshment breaks. Some measure
of protection for pharmacists is provided in the existing Code of Ethics
and Standards. Part 2, on standards of professional performance, states
that pharmacists must ensure that “they do not work in conditions
that do not enable them to comply with the key responsibilities of a
pharmacist” (A.1[d]) and that pharmacy owners have a responsibility “not
to seek to impose conditions on pharmacists which may adversely affect
their ability to comply with their professional and legal duties” (A.2[e]).
The proposed new code sets out only the principles that should be followed.
One of these principles is to “take responsibility for your working
practices”. It is acknowledged that the exact wording of the supporting
requirements has still to be developed but the currently drafted illustrations
only include the requirement for concerns to be raised if working conditions
compromise patient safety with no mention of the welfare and well-being
of pharmacy staff. This requirement is nowhere near supportive enough
to enable an employee to make a protest
relating to long working hours or lack of refreshment
breaks — where is there any associated obligation on pharmacy owners?
The new code categorically must enshrine the inalienable right of pharmacists
to take refreshment breaks and must place an absolute obligation on pharmacy
owners to make proper provisions for that right to be exercised without
restraint. This is an occasion when the Society must set out to protect
the welfare and well-being of pharmacists rather than to appease the
Department of Health, pharmacy owners, other key stakeholders and the
public.
It is proposed that “the code of ethics should not include detailed
technical guidance, but will act as the core document from which further
professional standards and guidance are developed”. Additionally,
and specifically, “where there is a need for more detailed standards
or guidance on complex issues or specific areas of practice, this should
be produced separately from the code. The status of these supporting
documents, for example, whether they are mandatory or good practice requirements,
should be clearly indicated”.
Perhaps it is in this context that standards for working hours and refreshment
breaks can be introduced in detail.
I believe that the supporting documents referred to should be mandatory
and should be developed simultaneously with the new code; otherwise,
and drawing an analogy with the recent Health Bill and the related Section
60 Order, the devil will be in the small print.
Stan Wheatley
Blandford Forum, Dorset
Needs to be specific about complementary medicines
From Mr R. Sturgess, MRPharmS
The debate about the rationale and effectiveness of complementary medicines,
including homoeopathic medicines, would be a diverting academic exercise
were it not for the fact that pharmacists are involved in their supply.
Under the key responsibilities of a pharmacist in the present Code of Ethics
(‘Medicines, ethics and practice’, 29th edition, July 2005,
p85) it states: “Pharmacists must ensure that their knowledge, skills
and performance are of a high quality, up to date, evidence based and relevant
to their field of practice.” Since there is no clinical evidence
of efficacy of some complementary medicines, then how can it be ethical
for pharmacists to go on supplying these?
The code also states (ibid, p93): “Pharmacists providing homoeopathic
or herbal medicines or other complementary therapies have a professional
responsibility
… (c) only to offer advice on homoeopathic or herbal medicines or other
complementary therapies or medicines if they have undertaken suitable training
or have specialised knowledge.” Many pharmacists supply complementary
medicines and I wonder what steps the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
inspectors take to inquire about the training and specialist knowledge
of those pharmacists who do.
There is a solution that will ensure that professional ethics are not compromised
and which will not add to the burden of the inspectorate. The Society should
compile a list of complementary medicines proven in clinical trials to
be effective and the Code of Ethics must be revised to require that none
other than these may be supplied by pharmacists.
Ray Sturgess
Knaresborough, North Yorkshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal