Pharmacists' Attitudes towards Medically Assisted Dying.

IF 2 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.3390/pharmacy12020040
Lun Shen Wong, Shane L Scahill, Emma Barton, Bert Van der Werf, Jessica Boey, Sanyogita Sanya Ram
{"title":"Pharmacists' Attitudes towards Medically Assisted Dying.","authors":"Lun Shen Wong, Shane L Scahill, Emma Barton, Bert Van der Werf, Jessica Boey, Sanyogita Sanya Ram","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy12020040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to explore pharmacists' attitudes and support toward medically assisted dying (MaiD) through the End of Life Choice Act 2019 (EOLC), their willingness to provide services in this area of practice, and the influences on their decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted via an anonymous, online Qualtrics<sup>TM</sup> survey of pharmacists. Registered New Zealand pharmacists who agreed to receive surveys from the two Schools of Pharmacy as part of their Annual Practicing Certificate renewal were invited to participate through an email with a Qualtrics URL link. The survey contained questions regarding demographics, awareness, knowledge, support for, and attitudes and willingness to participate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 335 responses received, 289 were valid and included in the analysis. Most participants supported legally assisted medical dying (58%), almost a third of participants did not support it (29%), and 13% of respondents were unsure. The five primary considerations that participants perceived to be beneficial included support from legislation, respect for patient autonomy, discussions around morality, ending suffering, and preserving dignity. The main concerns were legal, personal bias, palliation, stigmatisation, and vulnerability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The influences on the decision by pharmacists to support and willingness to participate in the provision of services consistent with the EOLC are complex and multifactorial. Diverse factors may influence attitudes, of which religion is the most significant factor in not supporting the Act or willingness to participate. Clarity and standardised guidance to ensure that assisted dying queries are appropriately managed in practice would help to address any potential access issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":30544,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10885061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12020040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: We aimed to explore pharmacists' attitudes and support toward medically assisted dying (MaiD) through the End of Life Choice Act 2019 (EOLC), their willingness to provide services in this area of practice, and the influences on their decisions.

Methods: The study was conducted via an anonymous, online QualtricsTM survey of pharmacists. Registered New Zealand pharmacists who agreed to receive surveys from the two Schools of Pharmacy as part of their Annual Practicing Certificate renewal were invited to participate through an email with a Qualtrics URL link. The survey contained questions regarding demographics, awareness, knowledge, support for, and attitudes and willingness to participate.

Results: Of the 335 responses received, 289 were valid and included in the analysis. Most participants supported legally assisted medical dying (58%), almost a third of participants did not support it (29%), and 13% of respondents were unsure. The five primary considerations that participants perceived to be beneficial included support from legislation, respect for patient autonomy, discussions around morality, ending suffering, and preserving dignity. The main concerns were legal, personal bias, palliation, stigmatisation, and vulnerability.

Conclusions: The influences on the decision by pharmacists to support and willingness to participate in the provision of services consistent with the EOLC are complex and multifactorial. Diverse factors may influence attitudes, of which religion is the most significant factor in not supporting the Act or willingness to participate. Clarity and standardised guidance to ensure that assisted dying queries are appropriately managed in practice would help to address any potential access issues.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药剂师对医疗协助死亡的态度。
目的:我们旨在通过《2019 年生命末期选择法案》(EOLC)探讨药剂师对医学协助死亡(MaiD)的态度和支持,他们在这一实践领域提供服务的意愿,以及对其决定的影响因素:本研究通过对药剂师进行匿名在线 QualtricsTM 调查的方式进行。新西兰注册药剂师同意接收两所药学院的调查,作为其年度执业证书续期的一部分,我们通过带有 Qualtrics URL 链接的电子邮件邀请他们参与调查。调查内容包括人口统计学、认知、知识、支持、态度和参与意愿等方面的问题:在收到的 335 份回复中,289 份有效,并纳入分析。大多数参与者支持合法协助医疗死亡(58%),近三分之一的参与者不支持(29%),13%的受访者不确定。参与者认为有益的五个主要考虑因素包括立法支持、尊重患者自主权、围绕道德进行讨论、结束痛苦和维护尊严。主要的顾虑是法律、个人偏见、减轻痛苦、污名化和脆弱性:影响药剂师决定支持并愿意参与提供符合《生命周期公约》的服务的因素是复杂的、多因素的。多种因素可能会影响药剂师的态度,其中宗教是不支持该法案或不愿参与的最重要因素。为确保在实践中对协助死亡询问进行适当管理而提供的明确性和标准化指导将有助于解决任何潜在的获取问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmacy
Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Attitudes and Experiences of Patients Regarding Gender-Specific Aspects of Pain Management. Assessment of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions of Psycholeptics and Antidepressants in Outpatient Settings. Tackling Pharmaceutical Pollution Along the Product Lifecycle: Roles and Responsibilities for Producers, Regulators and Prescribers. Evaluating Pharmacists' Knowledge of Food-Drug Interactions in Croatia: Identifying Gaps and Opportunities. Cardiovascular Diseases and Metabolic Medications in the Lebanese Population: A Post Hoc Analysis from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1