ReviewExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2025
Conscientious objection in pharmacist codes of ethics: An international comparison through document analysis.
Review in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Professional Independence as the Foundation of Modern Pharmacy Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Deontological Frameworks Across 30 European Jurisdictions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Conscience clause in emergency contraception: professional uncertainty, attitudes, and regulatory preferences among pharmacists and pharmacy students. A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conscientious objection (CO) in pharmacy refers to the refusal to provide certain services based on moral or religious beliefs. Person-centred care helps to carve a way forward in balancing the duality of private conscience and public role expectations of the pharmacist. While individual conscience is a factor, pharmacists must also adhere to professional, legal, and regulatory standards. This interplay highlights the need for clear, context-sensitive guidance for both pharmacists and patients to ensure equitable access to services. Objective: This review aimed to explore and understand the similarities, differences, and limits across international pharmacist codes of ethics in relation to CO clauses. Methods: The document search focused on a list of OECD member countries. The International Federation of Pharmacists (FIP) website assisted with the identification of relevant regulatory pharmacist organisations (POs) within OECD countries. Information on Codes of Ethics and CO clauses published in English were gathered from POs' websites using specific keywords. Document analysis was employed to qualitatively examine individual Codes of Ethics. Results: A survey of OECD countries ( Conclusion: There are similarities and differences in Codes of Ethics governing pharmacists' CO worldwide, suggesting variability in practice norms. Consistent guidance across jurisdictions is needed to safeguard patients' rights to access treatment. Future studies on how pharmacists apply ethical codes in CO scenarios could provide valuable insights for updating professional regulatory standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.