A cross-sectional study of applied bioethical reasoning in pharmacy students and preceptors
Objective: To compare ethical principles most often utilized by pharmacy students and preceptors to determine plan of action for an ethical dilemma and to determine if ethical principles utilized are the same for individuals in the postconventional range
Method: A two part survey was administered to a convenience sample of pharmacy students and preceptors. The first part was comprised of an original measure, the Pharmacy Ethical Dilemmas Survey (PEDS), that was developed to assess participants’ action choices on healthcare-related ethical dilemmas and which moral rule or ethical principle was most influential in their decision. The second part was comprised of the Defining Issues Test.
Results: Patient autonomy and non-maleficience were the primary bioethical principles applied by students but pharmacists applied non-maleficience, patient autonomy, and also pharmacist autonomy. For all scenarios, students were more likely to rely on the principle of beneficence, while preceptors were more likely to rely on the pharmacist’s right to autonomy. In the analysis of application of bioethical principles by higher and lower principled reasoning individuals, only in the assisted suicide scenario did the two groups agree on the primary principle applied with both groups relying predominantly on patient autonomy.
Conclusion: Students and preceptors utilize different bioethical principles to support how they would handle each ethical dilemma but P-scores do not play a role in determining which bioethical principles were used to justify their action choices.
2. Rest JR. Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Santa Barbara: Praeger Publishing; 1986.
3. Rest JR, Narvaez D, Bebeau M, Thoma S. A neo-Kohlbergian approach: the DIT and schema theory. Educ Psychol Rev. 1999;11(4):291-324.
4. Kohlberg L. Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. In: Beck C, Sullivan E (Eds.), Moral education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1970.
5. Piaget J. The moral development of the child. New York: Free Press; 1932.
6. Latif DA. Ethical cognition and selection-socialization in retail pharmacy. J Bus Ethics. 2000;25(4):343-357.
7. Rest JR, Narvaez D. Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum; 1994.
8. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
9. Elwell RJ, Bailie GR. Influence of classroom and clinical experience on the ethical decisions made by doctor of pharmacy students. The International Journal of Pharmacy Education 2003: 1(1)
10. Latif DA. An assessment of the ethical reasoning of United States pharmacy students: A national study. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(2):30.
11. Lowenthal W, Klein WS, Overton CP. Thinking about ethical dilemmas in pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 1986;50:161-164.
12. Cooper RJ, Bissell P, Wingfield J. Ethical decision-making, passivity and pharmacy. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(6):441-445. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022624
13. Benson A, Cribb A, Barber N. Understanding pharmacists' values: A qualitative study of ideals and dilemmas in UK pharmacy practice. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(12):2223-2230. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.012
14. Hibbert D, Reese JA, Smith I. Ethical awareness of community pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8(2):82-87.
15. Lowenthal W. Ethical dilemmas in pharmacy. J Med Ethics. 1988;14(1):31-34.
16. Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In: Puka B (Eds). Defining perspectives in moral development. New York, NY: Garland Publishing; 1994.
The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to Pharmacy Practice: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print pr epublish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to Pharmacy Practice with this document.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.