Pharmacist embarrassed by state board's decision
Richard W. Fowler
Letter to the Seattle P-I
As a past president of the Washington Pharmacists Association and an instructor of pharmacy law and ethics at Edmonds Community College, I am embarrassed with the way my profession and the Washington State Board of Pharmacy is handling the issue of pharmacy conscience.
The Seattle P-I quoted a statement law professor Patricia Williams wrote in The Nation last year: "The refusal to go along with anything with which you disagree may indeed be a principled individual choice, but it should not be allowed ... to substitute for the codes of behavior we demand as a condition of handling out professional licenses."
The Code of Ethics for Pharmacists, adopted by the American Pharmaceutical Association states:
"Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare and to maintain their trust."
Pharmacy has made great strides in the past 50 years, and has elevated itself to a position of respect in the public's eye. The increased focus on clinical education, the expanded practice sites, patient-counseling and the use of protocols to expand pharmacist responsibilities all are to be applauded. Now however, a few pharmacists are using a moral and religious issue to separate the profession from its public, our patients. If the level of scorn being expressed about this issue is any indication, the pharmacy profession just lost a lot of the admiration it has taken us years to raise.
Read more.
| 
