The first indication that there is an ethical issue in this case was when Dr. Petrov asks the pharmacist, Harold Hawkins, to donate his soon to expire medications. Dr. Petrov is heading back to his home country and wants to take medication donations with him. He insists that medications, even if not fully potent are better than no medication at all. This is an ethical issue because the people that may receive these medication could experience potential harm. Another issue is that the hospital policy and the law prohibits Mr. Hawkins from donating these medications. Even though Mr. Hawkins is aware of both the hospital policy and the law, he believe that the medications should indeed be given to Dr. Petrov.
There is not much clinical information
…show more content…
Hawkins needs to weigh the pros and cons of donating this medication to Dr. Petrov. Some cons to this decision would include potentially harming a patient by giving them an expired med, as well as suffering legal and institutional consequences by donating the medications. Some pros may include helping people in the Soviet Union gain access to medication, and helping out a fellow health care professional in need. By weighing the pros and cons to determine what the best decision is Mr. Hawkins acts in a utilitarian manner. I think the main struggle I have with donating these medications is the potential harm that it may cause to the person receiving the medication. What medications is Mr. Hawkins considering donating? Based on the answer to this question is whether or not I can justify Mr. Hawkins actions. Some medication can be essentially poison if expired and could do major harm to a person’s body. If this is the case then donating the medications would be doing a lot more harm than good. As pharmacists, it is one of our duties to prevent harm and do the most good. With this being said even though it seems like Mr. Hawkins would be doing a good deed by donating the soon to expire medications to Dr. Petrov, I do not believe he should do