The Pharmacist and Ethical Duty

The Pharmacist's Code of Ethics ("the Code") requires that a pharmacist must hold the health and safety of his patients as his first consideration. In this capacity, the ethical pharmacist must provide each of his patients with the full measure of his ability as a health provider, including using and making available all of his professional knowledge for the benefit of his patients. The Code also mandates that a pharmacist must respect the confidential and personal nature of his professional records and must not disclose such records to anyone without proper patient authorization, except in cases where the best interest of the patient requires or the law demands.

Emphasis is placed on the last clause because interpreting that clause will play a significant role in determining how a pharmacist may proceed in the case at hand. In this case, the pharmacist may have competing ethical obligations to Ruth and Milton, a married couple who are both patients. The pharmacist is obliged to protect the confidentiality of Milton's medical information. However, honoring that obligation might well be placing Ruth's life at risk. The question then becomes, "Is this situation one in which the pharmacist should or must violate Milton's confidentiality because it is in Ruth's best interest to do so, or because the law demands that he do so?"

The pharmacist should discuss Milton's condition with his attending physician and

. . .
ding in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976) suggests that the pharmacist may have a legal obligation to inform Ruth of the danger Milton's medical condition poses to her safety. In Tarasoff, the Court held that a psychotherapist had a legal obligation to inform a non-patient that a patient had threatened to kill her. The Court reasoned that the psychotherapist owed the non-patient a duty of care because he could have foreseen that she would be injured by the patient's conduct. The Court based this duty of care on the psychotherapist's "special relationship" with the patient. They noted, however, that the duty of care exists if the therapist has a special relationship with either the dangerous or the threatened person. In this case, the pharmacist has a special relationship with both Milton (the dangerous person) and Ruth (the threatened person). Arguably, he has a legal obligation to attempt to control Milton's behavior by requesting that Milton inform Ruth of his AIDS status or warning Ruth of the danger. To not warn Ruth could place him at risk of a lawsuit from Ruth if he does not inform her of the risk she faces. However, the situation in this case may differ from that in Tarasoff becaus
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ruth AIDS, Safety Code, Milton's AIDS, Ruth Milton, Tarasoff Court, Ethics Code, Information Act, Court Appeal, Professions Code, University California, aids status, medical information, milton's confidentiality, health safety, health safety code, local health, safety code, status ruth, health officer, special relationship, ruth aids, aids status ruth, milton's aids status, confidentiality reveal ruth, milton's confidentiality reveal,
Approximate Word count = 1543
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)