The UK’s most senior pharmacists have issued advice to those among the pharmacy professions who want to take part in the public debate around assisted dying.
Chief pharmaceutical officers (CPhOs) for the four home nations and other pharmacy leaders have said it is ‘entirely reasonable’ for pharmacists and pharmacist technicians to give their opinions and that ‘the public would expect that’.
The guidance comes as MPs are set to begin debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales to ‘be assisted to end their own life’.
A similar bill is also currently proceeding through the Scottish parliamentary process.
‘We are aware many pharmacy professionals have strong, informed opinions on this important topic but there is a wide spectrum of considered views on it within the professions as in society,’ the pharmacy leaders wrote.
‘Some pharmacists and pharmacy technicians may be unsure whether they can take part publicly in this debate.
‘In our view it is entirely reasonable for any pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to give their opinions, and that the public would expect that.’
They identified some ‘obvious things that should be avoided’, including:
- Identifying individuals you have cared for unless with their consent
- Directly engaging patients in debate
- Implying that the pharmacists and pharmacy technicians speak for the professions rather than expressing their personal views.
While noting that this was a decision for society, expressed through Parliament, the leaders said they believed pharmacy professions would be ‘unanimous’ on two things:
- That we must not undermine the provision of good end-of-life care for all including the outstanding work done by palliative care clinicians
- That individual pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and other healthcare professionals, should be able to exercise freedom of conscience.
The advice was signed by David Webb, CPhO for England; Andrew Evans, CPhO for Wales; Alison Strath, CPhO for Scotland; Cathy Harrison, CPhO for Northern Ireland; Elizabeth Fidler, senior professional advisor for pharmacy technician practice at NHS England; and Richard Cattell, deputy CPhO for England.
RPS Scotland calls for clarity
This advice follows calls from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) for clarity over the role of pharmacists in assisted dying in Scotland.
In an evidence session with members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) on 19 November, the RPS stressed that pharmacists must be allowed to conscientiously object to any assisted death.
Providing evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee at Holyrood, Fiona McIntyre, policy and practice Lead at RPS Scotland, said that any part of the assisted dying process requiring input of a healthcare professional should be covered by the requirement to opt in.
While pharmacists are specified in the bill, their precise role is not clearly stipulated.
Ms McIntyre used the session to call for clarity over what the role of the pharmacist would be when accompanying a doctor or nurse during the assisted death process, and when it would be appropriate, or not, for them to intervene – for example, if there were any adverse reactions to the substance taken.
She added that it would be preferable for the substance used to be a licensed product in order to protect both the public and health professionals.
The evidence session at the Scottish Parliament comes ahead of a House of Commons debate on a private members’ bill on assisted dying for England and Wales scheduled for Friday, 29 November.
In this bill, both registered pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians are listed as authorised health professionals.
The RPS has a neutral position on the principle of assisted dying. However, last month the society wrote to Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has brought forward the bill, to reiterate its position that any proposed legislation must include clauses on criminal liability and conscientious objection.
Ms McIntyre said she hoped the evidence session would lead to the strengthening of the bill ‘for the benefit of the pharmacy workforce and the patients they care for’.
She added: ‘We look forward to further engagement on the bill with MSPs from across the parliament as it progresses through its various stages and iterations.’
A version of this article was originally published by our sister publication The Pharmacist.
