Professional ethics pharmacist s right to refuse to dispense assignment

Justice is becoming the major ethical dilemma in today’s society, pharmacists are involved in choosing the drugs in the formula and in the hospital setting and this decision should not reflect personal interests or gains (Nordic, 2012). Pharmacists have to choose the most economical drug that can improve the quality of life. Justice should prevail among all patients, for example, factors such as age, social standing and economic stability should not influence the drug therapy chosen for the patient (Nordic, 2012).

Non- maleficent is defined as “ to cause no harm”, meaning that if the pharmacist thinks dispensing of a particular drug can harm his patient than he has an ethical right to say refuse to dispense (Rays, 2007). Pharmacists can refuse both abortiveness (substances that induce abortion), as well as certain drugs that can be used for the purpose of suicide (Porkier, 2003). Every religion let alone humanity, guides us to differentiate between right and wrong. Non- maleficent is often used with the term beneficence, which means, “ to do good” to another while non-maleficent is ‘ to do no harm’ (Porkier, 2003).

Cases as an Example In Order to understand the moral and ethical principles explained, three cases will be presented to explain situations a pharmacist may come across. Case 1: A young student 18 years old presents a drug prescription used as a contraceptive (Porkier, 2003, Rays, 2007). The direction in the prescription indicates that the drug will be used for the emergency contraception only (Rays, 2007). The pharmacist in-charge refuses to fill the prescription based on his beliefs and ethics ‘ to do no harm’. Although the patient is in distraught, the pharmacist provides her insight into his beliefs (Rays, 2007).

According to scriptures in the Bible, physical harm of the innocent is forbidden thus abortion is morally wrong because it is the killing of a human being and IS an act of selfishness in contrast to faith and love which most of the religion preach (Porkier, 2003). Case 2: An old patient comes to the pharmacy on a regular basis and submits a prescription for narcotic pain reliever (Porkier, 2003). After talking to the patient the pharmacist concludes the patient is pressed and may not use the drugs appropriately (Porkier, 2003).

The pharmacist should get all the information regarding the case before taking the decision and should insider all the options and their outcomes. No one set of rules presents itself for every situation and it solely depends on the pharmacist’s skill to take the right decision. Right to Refuse and Duty to Patient To answer the question that asks, if the pharmacist has the right to refuse to dispense a certain drug and if they refuse then their duty to the patient, one must understand the principles of the pharmacy practice.

Confidentiality of the patient’s profile is one of the main principles in order to maintain the relationship of trust and is only used for the benefit of the patient (Daniels, n. D. ). The patient in return then trusts the pharmacist in believing him to be non-maleficent, share their personal information, which is used by the pharmacist to provide the best therapy and care to the patient (Daniels, n. D. ).

The Kantian theory states that the people should be treated with respect and should be given equal right to autonomy (Christmas, 2015). According to Kantian theory a pharmacist is bound to dispense any drug the patient needs as the patient has their own freedom to live how they want (Daniels, n. D. ). According to the classical model of social responsibility and utilitarianism the pharmacist should play a role in maximizing the profit, if it’s within the laws, thus by refusing to dispense a certain drug the pharmacist may decrease the refit of the drug manufacturer and his employer (Daniels, n. D. ).

Finally, the utilitarian theories states that the action of the pharmacist should be able to maximize the overall good, so if he dispenses then he satisfies the patient, makes his employer happy and also give profit to the manufacturer of the drug (Discarding, 2006, p. 30). For the second alternative the pharmacist’s morals are hurt, but if the employer refuses then he has no choice. Laws have yet to pass that protects the pharmacist (Daniels, n. D. ). As for the third alternative, if the company or the employer takes up the responsibility for aging the decision then it becomes easy for the pharmacist to practice (Daniels, n. If the pharmacist does not agree with the terms of the employer then he is free to go to another employer who does practice the refusal (Daniels, n. D. ). Conclusion In the future pharmacists and society should work together to conduct discussions about such situations, pass the conscience clause in every state that protects the pharmacist, and develop a good and healthy relationship between the pharmacist and the physician so that the patient may enjoy the best health care without hindrance. The pharmacist should also take the accessibility to take a proactive approach so that issues of such severity are reduced.