The Code of Ethics of the American Pharmaceutical Association...

Code of Ethics for pharmacist - American Pharmaceutical Association

A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist acts with honesty and 'Integrity 'in professional relationships.

A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

A pharmacist serves 'Individual, community and societal needs.

A pharmacist seeks Justice 'in the distribution of health resources.

adopted by the membership of the American Pharmaceutical Association
October 27,1994.
***********************************************************

I maintain that any pharmacist unable or unwilling to abide by this be prohibited from practicing pharmacy. There is NOTHING in this that would tolerate a pharmacist using his or her own religous beliefs to deny a prescription to a customer.

"A pharmacist serves 'Individual, community and societal needs."

Such a pharmacist could argue that he is serving community and societal needs in refusing birth control drugs to patients.

Forget the fact that their type usually champions "the individual" and "individual responsibility." Not when it contradicts his fucking religion!! Then all of a sudden "societal and community needs" becomes more important. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites!

would seem to preclude that. If he respects the covenental relationship between a doctor and a patient, his job is NOT to intervene in that.

The first item reads "A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist." (emphasis added)

At first I thought this would be the "killer" item on the list as well until I got to the last word and it said pharmacist and not doctor (as I expected). Is that correct or is it a typo?

between these sanctimonious jerks and a mailman who threw away political material he didn't agree with and a fireman who let houses burn down because they had yard signs for candidates he didn't like or police who refused to arrest felons who carried voting cards marked Repuglican.

There are a lot of parallels out there, and if these pious frauds are allowed to get away with it, everything will start breaking down along those lines. Every sanctimonious shithead in the country is going to want to get in on the action.

Once again, if these guys are so fucking fastidious that they're capable of sitting in judgment of other human beings and so all wise they think they're allowed to countermand physician orders on a whim, they need to get the hell out of healthcare and find a church to preach in.

There is no place in medicine for people who are judgmental along religious or political lines and who feel they have the right to deny care to certain people. It just doesn't work that way.

I couldn't agree more.

Just pointing out the loophole that they could and would use to justify their actions.

Moral obligations of the pharmacist should be bifurcated as such: a) the professional obligations of the pharmacist, which in turn become the moral prescriptions of the role; and, b) the moral obligations of the person who happens to fill the role. So the moral obligations of the pharmacist was to provide medicine for the welfare of the patient in a safe manner. The moral issue for the individual was the conflict between the morals of the profession and their own personal moral beliefs. How are we to evaluate this dilemma?

Applbaum, in his discussion of Personal, Professional, and Political Morality offers an analysis that should help to further frame the issue in hopes of providing a worthy response:

You may not impose on the public your personal, nonpublic, promissory obligations (for impartial reasons); your personal, nonpublic morality (for liberal reasons , or your personal view of public morality (for skeptical reasons). --p.68.

The pharmacist failed the impartial obligation above as imposing his beliefs went beyond the duties of his role; he failed the liberal obligation by imposing his personal moral beliefs on the public and at the cost of the public (i.e. the patient); and ,I don't believe that it is relative or that he failed the skeptical obligation above as he did not directly impose his beliefs on the patient (rather, she experienced the consequences of the first and second point as described by Applbaum). Breaking down role-obligations to the tripartite structure provided above helps to elucidate the elements which are relevant in any role because they break down the obligations of the role and the person to it's immediate level (i.e., the person), an intermediate level (i.e., the role), and the supra-level (i.e., society).

<snip>editorial note - I believe the author makes the point I was trying to make which is in matters of health NO MATTER THE ISSUE the public interest can and should trump the pharmacists' belief since there are so many religious variations concerning health as to cause harm to the public

) With regards to the health care repercussion of this point (i.e., the Kantian categorical imperative), I feel somewhat out of my element, but I'll give it a shot anyway: a) If each pharmacist did this, there would easily come to exist such an overwhelming number of types of pharmaceutical care that any semblance of a normative standard of care would be hugely difficult to establish; and b) patients may be harmed if they encountered a pharmacist who did not prominently advertise his beliefs and the resultant specifications of those beliefs on his role (i.e., not dispensing certain drugs) --to name a few that readily come to mind. The two points above are important for their relation to the philosophy of science and patient care.

http://bioethicsdude.blogspot.com/2005/03/response-to-my-previous-post-in-re.html

the author is right - if every pharmacist were free to choose which prescriptions to fill based on his or her personal beliefs, there wouldn't be a profession of pharmacy.

There MUST be a presumption that when you bring a prescription to a pharmacist, the pharmacist will not interject his or her personal beliefs into the matter. Otherwise, there's no sense in even licensing pharmacists.

the extreme (and who's to say what's extreme lately?) Part of what allows for ANY accountability in medicine is that there are REASONABLE standards of care.

There MUST be a presumption that when you bring a prescription to a pharmacist, the pharmacist will not interject his or her personal beliefs into the matter. Otherwise, there's no sense in even licensing pharmacists.

If you'd quit smoking, you wouldn't need this antibiotic for pneumonia. My conscience sincerely tells me that you won't quit smoking if I give you this treatment for pneumonia. God wants you to quit smoking. I'm not filling this presription.

if I sell you a condom, you're gonna have sex, and I can't allow that.

People who think medicine is a moral issue should not be pharmacists. Plain and simple.

There are certain standards for any so-called "profession", whether it be pharmacist, lawyer or author.

For me, this is a guiding example - one where religious beliefs are paramount. A Protestant Chaplain in the military will hear Catholic confessions. A Catholic Chaplain will perform Jewish rites. If the faith (here, both professional and personal) of the person in service to others were held superior to those of the person being served, this wouldn't occur.

What if the chaplain decided that it was against his or her beliefs to not perform religious rites to those of other faiths, even though he had taken that job and felt that he should continue performing that job, even though his duties were not being fulfilled?

:thumbsup:

This is so important.

If they don't want to do their job, they either need to quit, or should be fired. That's what happens when people don't want to do their jobs.

if they heard about this. They owned their own drugstores and would never have dreamed of refusing a customer if a med was prescribed.

Pharmacists are not the moral judges of what medications people need to take. They are there to dispense the Rx and in the event an MD writes for Rxs that are contraindicated with each other to notify the patient& MD.


I agree Dookus...this just makes my blood boil.

Also, there is no way they can NOT give anyone a copy of their Rx to take to another pharmacy. I'm pretty sure that somewhere there is a law stating this. I remember if anyone requested it, they would either give them the original if it had not been filled or a copy if it had, so they could go elsewhere.

and we agree on both. The refusing to fill a prescription is unconscionable. The refusal to pass the prescription on is probalby illegal.

great post!!