A Pharmacist’s Oath: ‘The Relief of Suffering’
/By Carol Levy
The words “First do no harm” are actually not in the Hippocratic Oath, at least not directly:
"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous."
But the meaning is clear: Do no harm to patients.
I expect that from doctors, although many of us have been disappointed by their adherence to the Hippocratic Oath. What never occurred to me was that pharmacists also have an oath, which includes these pledges:
“I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow: I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
“I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for all patients. I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.”
The DEA has given pharmacists the freedom to ignore their oath, and has coerced some pharmacy chains into handing over our personal health information without a warrant.
Every time a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, questions why you need a medication, or asks personal questions, they are not using the “Oath of a Pharmacist.” They are instead exercising a “corresponding responsibility” under DEA regulations, which requires them to make sure a prescription for opioids and other controlled substances is valid and needed.
As far as the DEA is concerned, pharmacists have the same legal obligation as a physician to ensure that a medication has a “legitimate medical purpose.”
The DEA essentially allows pharmacists to substitute their opinion for that of the doctor, even if it runs counter to their pledge about “the relief of suffering.” Refusing to dispense opioid medication to a pain patient who is dependent on them basically ensures suffering.
I can see some pharmacists saying, “Well, I think that opioids are dangerous. Not filling the prescription is absolutely for the welfare of the patient.”
That argument sounds legitimate. But is it?
The pharmacist has not examined the patient. He/she does not know their medical history or the effect on them when their pain goes untreated. They haven't seen the patient’s x-rays, imaging, and other tests that confirm an injury or disorder that’s causing their pain.
Pharmacists may see us as their “patient" but we are really their customers. They have a product that we want. We come to them with the legally required paperwork to make a purchase. If they have the medication, there should be no issue. They should hand it over and we should pay for it.
If you know little or nothing about a customer, where do you get the right to decide what medication they can get? That decision should be left to our doctors, not to pharmacists or the DEA.
Those of us in chronic pain have a desperate need for doctors we can trust. The next step is pharmacists we can trust. Pharmacists who honor their oath to relieve suffering. Not pharmacists who are so fearful of the DEA that they think their best option is to ensure our suffering.
Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.” Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.
