Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 10–16 | Cite as

Ethics applied to pharmacy practice

  • R.P. Dessing
Article

Abstract

This article tries to develop an ethical reasoning that can be applied to (the practice of) pharmacy. Only general principles, based on accepted values in western society, lead to guidelines for ethical behaviour. Such essential values are personal autonomy, democracy and solidarity.The principle of nonmaleficence can be derived from these. Results of this analysis can be applied to health care and pharmacy practice. Subchapters deal with questions such as budget limitations and the autonomy of the patient versus that of the care provider. It concludes that protocols are important tools for ethical behaviour in every day practice. The ethical problem appears to be the unequal access to the health care system.An analysis of pharmaceutical care in the light of ethics can help to formulate the pharmacist's responsibilities. The principle of nonmaleficence is strongly connected to the pharmacy profession. Pharmacists should focus more on possible negative outcomes of pharmacotherapy. Monitoring the patient's medication, identification and prevention of possible adverse effects, medication surveillance, proper communication and information about the use of medicines are therefore priority items within our profession. A definition of target groups for pharmaceutical care will facilitate this task.A suggestion for a general code of ethics for pharmacists is proposed and compared with the code of ethics as currently accepted by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP)‐ council.

Adverse effects Autonomy Cost control Medication surveillance Nonmaleficence Pharmaceutical care Pharmaco economics Pharmacovigilance Pharmacy Pharmacy profession Philosophy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hintjes J, Analytische ethiek; 1997; Giotto b.v., Vaals-Montalcino.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson M, Teach yourself philosophy; 1995; Hodder and Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ethica Nichomachea; Aristoteles; Uitg. Kallias b.v., Amsterdam 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singer P ed, Applied ethics, Oxford readings in philosophy 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kant I, Fundering voor de metafysica van de zeden;1997; Uitg. Boom Amsterdam. Syllabus' Ethiek als levenskunst'; Ataraxia 1998, Amsterdam/AmorgosGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Universal declaration of Human Rights; 1948Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leijen, A; Profielen van ethiek, Van Aristoteles tot Levinas; uitg. Coutinho 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levinas E, Het menselijk gelaat; 1969; Uitg. AMBO, BaarnGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keij J, Eenvoudig gezegd: Levinas;1993; Uitg. Kok Agora; KampenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spreeuwenberg C, Hoe ver reiken de verantwoordelijkheden van de huisarts? Medisch Contact 1997, 40, 281–4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dupuis H.M., Ethische aspecten van de kostendiscussie; Pharm. Weekblad 132,p 782, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rorty R; Contingency, Irony and solidarity; 1989 Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nilstun, T., Clinical pharmacy research: A model for ethical analysis; CMA/ESCP symposium on Ethical and economical aspects of pharmacotherapy, june 1998, Prague. Department of Medical Ethics, Lund Univ, Sweden.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Vries G, Fatsoenlijke risicomaatschappij vergt een nieuwe constitutie; De Volkskrant 14–2-1998Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Who decides on treatment: The patient versus the state. Drug and therapeutics bulletin, 1999, 37, 55–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Key dilemma's in prescribing and the position of health; Drug & therapeutics Bulletin 1997, 35, 47–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nieuwe geneesmiddelen op proef; Geneesmiddelen bulletin;1997, 31, 62–3.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eland, IA et al. Verstrekking van taxoiden in 1996: ongelijkheid in de zorg; NTvG 1998, 142, pg 518Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paclitaxel and docetaxel; Drug and therapeutics Bulletin, 1997, 35, 43–6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hepler CD, Strand, LM; Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am. J. Hosp. Pharmacy' 90,47,533–43Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schermer, M.,; Autonomie in de gezondheidsethiek en zorgethiek; Tijdschift voor empirische filosofie 1997, 21, 353Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bemt; P.v.d.; Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 133, 1269Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lazaron J; Pomeranz BH; Corey PN, Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. A meta analysis of prospective studies; JAMA 1998, 279, 1200–5Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bates DW, Drugs and adverse drug reactions; How woried should we be. JAMA 1998, 279, 1216–7Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boxtel CJ v; Hekster YA, Grootheest AC v; Kennis en bewustwording van ongewenste effecten is noodzakelijk. Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 133, 1813Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF,; Principles of biomedical ethics, 4 th edition, 1996. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tronto, JC; Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care, Routledge, New York/London 1993Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hudson S.; Pharmacy practice research; the student's missing link; Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 37, 1384Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rahimtoola H, Timmers A, Dessing R, Hudson S, Target groups for pharmaceutical care; Pharmacy World & Science 1996, 105–13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    International Pharmacy journal; Suppl to vol 11, no 5, 1997Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heifetz, MD; Ethics in medicine; 1996; Prometheus Books, NewYork.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.P. Dessing
    • 1
  1. 1.Apotheek AAN ZEENoordwijkThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations