BackgroundPharmacists as the trustee of pharmacy services must adhere to ethical principles and evaluate their professionalism. Pharmacists may sometimes show different unethical behaviors in their interactions, so it is essential to understand these behaviors. The present study aimed to determine the challenges of ethical behaviors based on a principles-based approach in the area of drug supply in pharmacies.MethodsThis qualitative content analysis was conducted in Kerman in 2018. A number of key players in the field of medication supply were selected using (...) snowball sampling to interview. An effort was made to select samples with maximum variation. Exclusion criteria include having less than 3 years of work experience in pharmacy and supervision, not willing to participate in the interview, and not participating in the interview for 3 times. The participants in this study consisted of pharmacy technicians, patients, pharmacists, inspectors of insurance companies, and inspectors of food and drug administration. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis by Maxqda software version 10. The principles of “Beauchamp and Childress Ethics” theory including autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice were selected as the main principles.ResultsAfter data analysis, 8 main categories and 26 subcategories were obtained. The main categories include patient privacy, patient independence, communication principles, patient-centered services, drug supplier, patient harm avoidance, supervision, and distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. The subcategories include increasing patient awareness, culturizing prescription, and rational drug use, confidentiality and privacy, and pharmacist-patient relationship/communication, which were the main ethical challenges in the area of drug supply at pharmacies.ConclusionsAccording to a principle-based approach, the greatest challenges were related to two principles of autonomy and beneficence. The policymakers in the healthcare system should emphasize patient independence, patient privacy, and patient-centered services. The results of this study can be used as a tool to introduce ethical challenges to policymakers and develop educational contents, the chart of professional ethics in pharmacies, and accreditation measures of pharmacies. (shrink)

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and (...) the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances. (shrink)

I served as a medical student and resident in the 1960s. Science as a belief system had reached a pinnacle. Yet Not infrequently in those days, I found myself caring, with little available backup, for a hospital ward filled with sick and dying people. It was a lonely and often frightening responsibility. I began to encounter situations that were at odds with our collective certainty that science would provide the answers. Some of these memories I repressed for almost a decade. (...) I was unable to process them until I had personally experienced a more humanistic side of medicine. (shrink)

Background: The pharmaceutical industry has been responsible for major medical advances, but the industry has also been heavily criticized. Such criticisms, and associated regulatory responses, are no doubt often warranted, but do not provide a framework for those who wish to reason systematically about the moral dimensions of drug development. We set out to develop such a framework using Beauchamp and Childress's “four principles” as organizing categories. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study of people working in the “medical affairs” (...) departments of pharmaceutical companies to determine: (1) whether our data could meaningfully be organized under the headings of “autonomy,” “beneficence,” “nonmaleficence,” and “justice”; (2) how principles might be expressed in this particular commercial setting; and (3) if these principles are expressed, whether and how competing principles are balanced. We then critiqued these findings using existing normative theory. Results: Our interviews demonstrated that three of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles were salient to our participants: beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Within each of these principles, participants had two broad ethical orientations: an altruistic public focus (“other-ness”) and a commitment to their companies (“firm-ness”). Our participants also demonstrated efforts to balance these principles and highlighted the importance of phronesis (or practical wisdom) in balancing and enacting principles. Notably, however, our participants did not spontaneously emphasize the importance of autonomy. Conclusions: It is possible to use qualitative empirical research, together with normative analysis, to derive a framework for pharmaceutical ethics. We suggest that our framework would be useful for those who wish to reason ethically within, or in collaboration with, the pharmaceutical industry. (shrink)