Background: Conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare is a controversial topic. Some perceive CO as freedom of conscience, others believe their professional duty-of-care overrides personal-perspectives. There is a paucity of literature pertaining to pharmacists' perspectives on CO. Aim: To explore Australian pharmacists' decision-making in complex scenarios around CO and reasons for their choices. Method: A cross-sectional, qualitative questionnaire of pharmacists' perspectives on CO. Vignette-based questions were about scenarios related to medical termination, emergency contraception, IVF surrogacy for a same-sex couple and Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) Results: Approximately half of participants (n = 223) believed pharmacists have the right to CO and most agreed to supply prescriptions across all vignettes. However, those who chose not to supply (n = 20.9%), believed it justifiable, even at the risk of patients failing to access treatment. Strong self-reported religiosity had a statistically significant relationship with decisions not to supply for 3 of 4 vignettes. Three emergent themes included: ethical considerations, the role of the pharmacist and training and guidance. Conclusion: This exploratory study revealed perspectives of Australian pharmacists about a lack of guidance around CO in pharmacy. Findings highlighted the need for future research to investigate and develop further training and professional frameworks articulating steps to guide pharmacists around CO.
Keywords: Conscientious objection (CO); access to medicines; equity; ethical considerations; pharmacy; refusing supply; religion.
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.