Anita Majchrowska, Michał Wiechetek, Joanna Pawlikowska, Mariola Drozd, Jakub Pawlikowski

Social attitudes towards the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection – research on the Polish population
2024-02-29

Introduction. The right to conscientious objection in the pharmacist profession, as in the case of other medical professions, has been the subject of a lively ethical and legal discussion in Poland and abroad for numerous years. This is related to the introduction of products and devices whose intended use or mechanism of action conflict with religious beliefs or moral convictions of some pharmacists into the pharmacy trade. Pharmacists practicing in Poland do not have a legally established conscience clause regulating their professional activity; however, there are attempts to introduce such a legal solution similar to that of doctors and nurses.

Aim. The aim of our study was to analyze Polish society’s attitude towards the conscientious objection of pharmacists. We tested the hypotheses that social attitudes are situation-specific and may be influenced by psychological and sociodemographic variables, such as perception of the prestige of the pharmacist profession, tendency to seek advice from pharmacists, age, gender, education, financial condition, health status and place of residence.

Material and methods. The research was conducted on a group of 600 people over 18 years of age. The sample was representative of the Polish population. A mix mode technique was used based on personal and telephone interviews, i.e., 84% CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) and 16% CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). Respondents were asked whether a pharmacist, guided by his or her own conscience, could refuse to sell selected products or devices such as hormonal contraceptives, morning-after pills and intrauterine devices.

Results. The majority of respondents (78–86% – depending on the case) believed that a pharmacist has no right to refuse to sell a product or device available in the pharmacy. A small number of respondents indicated that the pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell contraceptives (2.7%, n = 16), intrauterine devices (8.7%, n = 52), and post-coital pills (10.5%, n = 63). Statistically significant differences were observed between the level of acceptance of the pharmacist’s conscientious objection in different cases: refusal to dispense hormonal contraceptives (Me = 0.14), intrauterine devices (Me = 0.21) and post-coital pills (Me = 0.25) (p = 0.01). The acceptance of conscientious objection by pharmacists correlates statistically significantly negatively with the respondents’ age, financial condition, level of perceived prestige of the pharmacist profession, and positively with the tendency to consult OTC medicines with pharmacists. There was no relationship between education, health status and place of residence, and no differences between women and men.

Conclusions. The level of social acceptance for introducing a conscience clause into laws regulating the practice of the pharmacist profession seems to be low. However, it varies depending on the type of pharmaceutical product or medical device, which may result from the perception of a different mechanism of action, which, to a greater or lesser extent, may be morally objectionable. The level of social acceptance of the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection is also dependent on the social perception of the pharmacist’s role and is also modified by psychological and sociodemographic variables such as perception of the pharmacist’s prestige, tendency to consult a pharmacist when purchasing medications, as well as the respondents’ age and their financial condition.

Keywords: pharmacists, conscientious objection, postcoital pills, hormonal contraception, intrauterine devices.

© Farm Pol, 2023, 79(12): 723–733