Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 3–10 | Cite as

Ethics in pharmacy: a new definition of responsibility

  • R.P. Dessing
  • J. Flameling
Commentary

Abstract

Ethics and responsibility are expressions that should characterize professional practice in many sectors of society. Pharmacy, being a high technology activity, is just an example of a field where (responsible) decisions about medicines and health care are closely connected to private and public life. Responsible behavior can only be demonstrated when the moral basis, the values on which decisions are taken, is clear and accepted by society as a whole. The basis for responsible action in medicine is still considered to connect with the Hippocratic Oath. But this code has no clear philosophical basis, other than the fact that it was recognized by the inner circle of physicians. Modern dilemmas like the role of technology, public costs, the definition of life, genetic engineering and assisted suicide ask for an approach that is rational, based on philosophical ideas and understandable and accepted by the public. From the work of 20th century philosophers like Rawls, Nussbaum and Sen, essential values can be abstracted, which apply to health and health care. Although the plurality of human beings makes it complicated to translate such values into general rules of conduct, this article presents a model for responsible behavior, based on these values. It appears that responsibility includes the obligation to interact with a patient to an extent in which the values of self-determination, compassion and justice have real significance for the parties involved. This responsibility calls for ('Aristotelian') experience and practical wisdom and should be recognizable through guidelines and legislation.

Autonomy Ethics Hippocratic oath Justice Responsibility Pharmaceutical care Pharmacy Philosophy Public health Values 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Edgar A, Salek S, Shickle D, Cohen D, editors. The ethical QALY. Haslemere, UK: Euromed Communications, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sloterdijk P. Regels voor een mensenpark. Meppel, The Netherlands, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nussbaum MC, Sunstein CR, editors. Clones and clones. New York: WW Norton, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singer PA. Recent advances in medical ethics. BMJ 2000; 321: 282.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singer PA, Pellegrino ED, Siegler M. Clinical ethics revisited. Medical Ethics 2001; 2: 1 (http://www.BioMedCentral.com).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veatch RM, Haddad A. Case studies in pharmacy ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gailbraith JK. The good society. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haraway DJ. ModestWitness@SecondMillennium. New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angell M. The pharmaceutical industry – to whom is it accountable? N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1902.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hofstede G. Allemaal andersdenkenden; omgaan met cultuurverschillen. Amsterdam: Contact, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dessing RP. Ethics applied to pharmacy practice. Pharmacy World Sci 2000; 22: 10–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pojman LP. Classics of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scruton R. Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kenny A. Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rawls J. Justice as Fairness: political not metaphysical. In Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nussbaum MC, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aristotle. Ethica Nichomachae. Amsterdam: Kallias, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Microsoft® Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia. © 1993–1996, Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rietdijk W, Dohmen J. De optimalisering van geluk. Filosofie Magazine 1999 (katern Humane selectie); 1–14.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Everdingen J, Cohen A, Feenstra G, editors. Ziekten maken en breken. Meppel, The Netherlands: Boom, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gordijn B. Gentherapie; het ethisch debat. Pharm Weekbl 1999; 134: 903.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer P, editor. Applied ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rorty RM. Solidarity or objectivity? Three philosophical essays. Meppel, The Netherlands: Boom, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nussbaum MC. Aristotelian social democracy. In RB Douglas, GM Mara, editors, From liberalism and the good. London: Routledge, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sen A. On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith A. The theory of moral sentiments, 11, ii,3. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sen A. Inequality reexamined, 5th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nussbaum MC. Upheavals of thought: a theory of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith K, Johnson Ph. Business ethics & business behaviour. London: Int Thomson Business Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Holloway SWF. Values and the practice of pharmacy. Pharm J 2000; 265: 308–12.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Melker RA. Analyse van expertiserapporten bij tuchtzaken. N Tijdschr Geneesk 2001; 145: 1019.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singer P. Bioethics at the bed side. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.P. Dessing
    • 1
  • J. Flameling
    • 2
  1. 1.NoordwijkThe Netherlands e‐mail
  2. 2.Filosofisch Bureau AtaraxiaAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations