A cross-sectional study of applied bioethical reasoning in pharmacy students and preceptors

  • Lauren S. Schlesselman
Keywords: Ethics, Pharmacy, Principle-Based Ethics, Professional Practice, Attitude of Health Personnel, United States


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.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Lauren S. Schlesselman

Associate Clinical Professor

Department of Pharmacy Practice

University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy

69 North Eagleville Road, Unit-3092

Storrs, CT 06269

860-486-6026 (office)

860-486-2076 (fax)



1. Sporrong SK, Hoglund AT, Arnetz B. Measuring moral distress in pharmacy and clinical practice. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(4):416-427.

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.
How to Cite
Schlesselman LS. A cross-sectional study of applied bioethical reasoning in pharmacy students and preceptors. Pharm Pract (Granada) [Internet]. 2014Jun.26 [cited 2019Oct.22];12(2):401. Available from: https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/401
Original Research