Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

PJ Online | PJ Letters: Needle exchange

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

Return to PJ Online Home Page

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7213 p278-281
31 August 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

   

PDF* 70K

Letters

  Needle exchange
  Product names
  EHC
  Remuneration
  Compliance
  Type 2 diabetes
  The Profession
  Modernisation
  The Society


Letters to the Editor

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

Needle exchange

Slightly queasy about mixing issues

From I. L. Marsha, MRPharmS

I read the Broad Spectrum article about the ethics of needle exchange schemes (PJ, 17 August, p214) with much interest, as, I am sure, did many others. The author eloquently discussed the issue, and in the process gave us an insight into his own views on the subject. It is not my intention to decry any of his thoughts through these columns.

The only points I would make are that first, in any issue, it may seem as though a relatively simple decision will be arrived at by one person that will cause a profound ethical, perhaps insoluble, dilemma for another. Whether or not we agree with the decision of anyone formulating public health policy to provide a service, we should credit them with an appropriate amount of thought, utilitarian or otherwise, before the decision is made.

Secondly, I am always slightly queasy about mixing issues in any serious debate, in this case a comparison between the provision of nicotine replacement products to smokers and needles to drug misusers, especially when the issues are not discussed fully and a subsidiary one is merely mentioned as a thought provoker. This concept is usually less than well conceived.

I am sure that the article will continue to incite much lively argument.

Ian Marsha
Aseptic Services Unit Pharmacist/Teacher-Practitioner
Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology,
University of Bath

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Product names)

Back to Top

Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs  Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us

©The Pharmaceutical Journal

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 20007538

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

RPS publications

Pharmaceutical Press is the publishing division of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and is a leading provider of authoritative pharmaceutical information used throughout the world.

Visit rpharms.com

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Rate
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.