ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2003
"Death was a blessing"--should it ever be pharmaceutically hastened? British pharmacists' views.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Australian pharmacists' perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Medical assistance in dying: Examining Canadian pharmacy perspectives using a mixed-methods approach.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Hospital Pharmacy Staff in Canada Regarding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the views and experiences of British pharmacists in physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) and to examine whether differences in views were associated with personal characteristics.
methodA postal questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 500 registered pharmacists, with addresses in England or Wales, stratified according to sex and community/hospital working environments.
main outcome measurePharmacists' reports of their views and experiences of PAS and VAE.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were received from 295 respondents (response rate: 59%). The majority of respondents (83%) reported that at times, a person had the right to choose their own manner of death; 61% and 53% thought that there should be changes in the Law to legalise VAE and PAS, respectively. If it were legal to do so, 63% stated that they would be willing to dispense medication for VAE and 64% for PAS. However, only 45% agreed that the pharmacist should have a role in advising the prescriber on the choice and dose of drugs used. Sex, age, and years registered as a pharmacist were not found to be significantly associated with views on the practices of PAS and VAE. However, pharmacists who reported having a religion were significantly less likely to favour such practices. On comparing the views of community and hospital pharmacists, community pharmacists were significantly less likely than expected to want to be informed about the intended purpose of lethal drugs.
conclusionIn this survey, while over half of British pharmacists did not disagree in principle to the legalisation of VAE and/or PAS, they were less supportive of direct involvement in such procedures. Religion was a discriminatory factor associated with negative views of VAE and PAS. The significant minority of pharmacists not wanting to know the purpose of drugs they suspected might be for PAS or VAE is not in accordance with professional accountability, reflecting the complex and sometimes conflicting legal and moral aspects of such practices when deciding upon a course of action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14689818What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.