Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics applied to pharmacy practice

  • Published:
Pharmacy World and Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hintjes J, Analytische ethiek; 1997; Giotto b.v., Vaals-Montalcino.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson M, Teach yourself philosophy; 1995; Hodder and Stoughton, London.

  3. Ethica Nichomachea; Aristoteles; Uitg. Kallias b.v., Amsterdam 1997.

  4. Singer P ed, Applied ethics, Oxford readings in philosophy 1986.

  5. Kant I, Fundering voor de metafysica van de zeden;1997; Uitg. Boom Amsterdam. Syllabus' Ethiek als levenskunst'; Ataraxia 1998, Amsterdam/Amorgos

    Google Scholar 

  6. Universal declaration of Human Rights; 1948

  7. Leijen, A; Profielen van ethiek, Van Aristoteles tot Levinas; uitg. Coutinho 1992.

  8. Levinas E, Het menselijk gelaat; 1969; Uitg. AMBO, Baarn

    Google Scholar 

  9. Keij J, Eenvoudig gezegd: Levinas;1993; Uitg. Kok Agora; Kampen

    Google Scholar 

  10. Spreeuwenberg C, Hoe ver reiken de verantwoordelijkheden van de huisarts? Medisch Contact 1997, 40, 281–4

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dupuis H.M., Ethische aspecten van de kostendiscussie; Pharm. Weekblad 132,p 782, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rorty R; Contingency, Irony and solidarity; 1989 Cambridge University press.

  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. De Vries G, Fatsoenlijke risicomaatschappij vergt een nieuwe constitutie; De Volkskrant 14–2-1998

  15. Who decides on treatment: The patient versus the state. Drug and therapeutics bulletin, 1999, 37, 55–6.

  16. Key dilemma's in prescribing and the position of health; Drug & therapeutics Bulletin 1997, 35, 47–8

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nieuwe geneesmiddelen op proef; Geneesmiddelen bulletin;1997, 31, 62–3.

  18. Eland, IA et al. Verstrekking van taxoiden in 1996: ongelijkheid in de zorg; NTvG 1998, 142, pg 518

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paclitaxel and docetaxel; Drug and therapeutics Bulletin, 1997, 35, 43–6

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hepler CD, Strand, LM; Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am. J. Hosp. Pharmacy' 90,47,533–43

  21. Schermer, M.,; Autonomie in de gezondheidsethiek en zorgethiek; Tijdschift voor empirische filosofie 1997, 21, 353

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bemt; P.v.d.; Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 133, 1269

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lazaron J; Pomeranz BH; Corey PN, Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. A meta analysis of prospective studies; JAMA 1998, 279, 1200–5

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bates DW, Drugs and adverse drug reactions; How woried should we be. JAMA 1998, 279, 1216–7

    Google Scholar 

  25. Boxtel CJ v; Hekster YA, Grootheest AC v; Kennis en bewustwording van ongewenste effecten is noodzakelijk. Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 133, 1813

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF,; Principles of biomedical ethics, 4 th edition, 1996. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tronto, JC; Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care, Routledge, New York/London 1993

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hudson S.; Pharmacy practice research; the student's missing link; Pharm. Weekblad 1998, 37, 1384

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rahimtoola H, Timmers A, Dessing R, Hudson S, Target groups for pharmaceutical care; Pharmacy World & Science 1996, 105–13

  30. International Pharmacy journal; Suppl to vol 11, no 5, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  31. Heifetz, MD; Ethics in medicine; 1996; Prometheus Books, NewYork.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Apotheek AAN ZEE, Parallelboulevard 214A, 2202 HT, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

    R.P. Dessing

Authors
  1. R.P. Dessing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dessing, R. Ethics applied to pharmacy practice. Pharm World Sci 22, 10–16 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008723226368

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008723226368

Search

Navigation