- Email: [email protected]
Our Code of Ethics
our code of ethics Pharmacy being a profession which demands knowledge, skill and integrity on the part of those engaged in it, and being associated with the medical profession in the responsible duties of preserving public health, and dispensing the useful though often dangerous agents adapted to the cure of disease, its members should be united on some general principles to be observed in their several relations to each other, to the medical profession and to the public.
With this preamble, the first code of ethics for pharmacy in the U.S.A. was adopted on March 31, 1848 by the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. It was a true milestone in the self-regulation of pharmacy in our country. Almost prophetic in its principles, it covered such currently accepted standards as those prohibiting any apothecary from making "diagnosis and treatment of disease" and condemning the practice of "allowing any physician a percentage or commission on prescriptions." The 1848 code further pinpointed today's professional problems as it deplored the sale of weak, inert or impure drugs "from motives of competition or desire of gain," insisted on a prescription before dispensing all "powerful substances as alkaloids, ergot and cantharides" and asked that the apothecary's remuneration be based on pharmacist's services rather than on the "market value of the preparations dispensed." When the AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION was organized in 1852, it modeled its code of ethics after the Philadelphia one. Members were accepted on the basis of subscribing to this new APHA code, but American pharmacy was not ready to adhere to such rigid standards. APHA Secretary Edward Parrish thus concluded that "these ethical rules had to be the goal but not the condition for membership" while the new national organization was in its embryonic stage. So in 1855, the obligation to subscribe to the APHA code as a prerequisite of membership was dropped and the code itself disappeared from the literature for over half a century, even though members were expelled from time to time for "violation of APHA's sense of moral rectitude and the general purposes of its organization." But the code was not completely forgotten. In 1922 at the instigation of Charles La Wall, APHA adopted a new and comprehensive code of ethics based upon the fundamentals of describing the relation of the pharmacist to the public, to the physician and to his fellow pharmacist. So well drawn up was this code that with but few modifications it serves as our present code of ethics. Only in one respect did La Wall hedge- he questioned whether the association should include "a penalizing factor requiring expulsion for violations." This question still confronted pharmacists in 1952, when, as part of the observance of Founders' Day, a special APHA conference reviewed the entire area of relations between the pharmacist, physician and public. Opinions still varied on procedures to handle violators. Some advocated a more liberal interpretation while others clamored for laws to make the code enforceable by police action. The question was asked-but not answeredis the profession losing perspective in attempts to rationalize practices growing out of the competitive climate in which we practice pharmacy. Ten years later we are still reaching for the answers. We hope the series of papers contained in this issue (see page 72) on theological, legislative and practical considerations of our code of ethics will help us answer these and other equally compelling questions on ethical standards and professional conduct. Certainly they remind us that ethics, as E. C. Elliott reported in 1949, is a key problem for the survival of pharmacy as a true profession . After spending several years surveying American pharmacy, Elliott statedAfter all has been said and done, it may be concluded that the outstanding factor in determining the future of the profession of pharmacy is fundamentally moral in nature. The profession must contain a far greater proportion of members who are ever sharply jealous of the high reputation of the profession, and who, by energetic co-operation, are determined ever to protect that reputation.
--editor Vol. NS3, No.2, February 1963
65
With this preamble, the first code of ethics for pharmacy in the U.S.A. was adopted on March 31, 1848 by the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. It was a true milestone in the self-regulation of pharmacy in our country. Almost prophetic in its principles, it covered such currently accepted standards as those prohibiting any apothecary from making "diagnosis and treatment of disease" and condemning the practice of "allowing any physician a percentage or commission on prescriptions." The 1848 code further pinpointed today's professional problems as it deplored the sale of weak, inert or impure drugs "from motives of competition or desire of gain," insisted on a prescription before dispensing all "powerful substances as alkaloids, ergot and cantharides" and asked that the apothecary's remuneration be based on pharmacist's services rather than on the "market value of the preparations dispensed." When the AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION was organized in 1852, it modeled its code of ethics after the Philadelphia one. Members were accepted on the basis of subscribing to this new APHA code, but American pharmacy was not ready to adhere to such rigid standards. APHA Secretary Edward Parrish thus concluded that "these ethical rules had to be the goal but not the condition for membership" while the new national organization was in its embryonic stage. So in 1855, the obligation to subscribe to the APHA code as a prerequisite of membership was dropped and the code itself disappeared from the literature for over half a century, even though members were expelled from time to time for "violation of APHA's sense of moral rectitude and the general purposes of its organization." But the code was not completely forgotten. In 1922 at the instigation of Charles La Wall, APHA adopted a new and comprehensive code of ethics based upon the fundamentals of describing the relation of the pharmacist to the public, to the physician and to his fellow pharmacist. So well drawn up was this code that with but few modifications it serves as our present code of ethics. Only in one respect did La Wall hedge- he questioned whether the association should include "a penalizing factor requiring expulsion for violations." This question still confronted pharmacists in 1952, when, as part of the observance of Founders' Day, a special APHA conference reviewed the entire area of relations between the pharmacist, physician and public. Opinions still varied on procedures to handle violators. Some advocated a more liberal interpretation while others clamored for laws to make the code enforceable by police action. The question was asked-but not answeredis the profession losing perspective in attempts to rationalize practices growing out of the competitive climate in which we practice pharmacy. Ten years later we are still reaching for the answers. We hope the series of papers contained in this issue (see page 72) on theological, legislative and practical considerations of our code of ethics will help us answer these and other equally compelling questions on ethical standards and professional conduct. Certainly they remind us that ethics, as E. C. Elliott reported in 1949, is a key problem for the survival of pharmacy as a true profession . After spending several years surveying American pharmacy, Elliott statedAfter all has been said and done, it may be concluded that the outstanding factor in determining the future of the profession of pharmacy is fundamentally moral in nature. The profession must contain a far greater proportion of members who are ever sharply jealous of the high reputation of the profession, and who, by energetic co-operation, are determined ever to protect that reputation.
--editor Vol. NS3, No.2, February 1963
65