Public Opinion Regarding Information on Porcine-Contained Medications

Anindhita Paramita Wibowo, Yoni Fuadah Syukriani, Teguh Marfen Djajakusumah


Background: Drugs are biological products, a single or combination of active and additives components. Some additional components are derived from porcine, a substance that is haraam for Muslims. Patient’s rights, such as medication information, are substantial in decision-making process. Medical decision-making in the Eastern culture is not only the patient’s affair, but also family’s interest. This study aimed to determine the public opinion on that matter.

Methods: This study was conducted in October–November 2014 using qualitative methods. Data collection was performed in the District of Jatinangor, Sumedang Regency by using the purposive sampling method. Six respondents were selected. Data were collected through in-depth interview techniques and were analyzed using content analysis technique.

Results: There were 3 main responses regarding the respondent’s opinions. First, respondents showed several attitudes toward drugs in general and also several attitudes toward porcine-contained drugs. Respondents showed concern for the medications used and wished either to be informed or not about the prohibited substance in the drugs. The decision-making process of respondents was performed by each individual or family, with the guidance of religious scholars. In a doctor-patient relationship, the doctors should be more active in providing information on the medications and the opportunity for patients to choose drugs. Respondents also had a high dependency to the physicians in making medical decisions.

Conclusions: Public opinion on patient’s rights regarding porcine-contained drugs shows the people’s attitude towards drugs in general and porcine-contained drugs in particular, the decision-making process and the relationship between physicians and patients.



Patient’s rights, drug information, public opinion, porcine

Full Text:



Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan. Peraturan kepala badan pengawas obat dan makanan Republik Indonesia No. HK. tentang izin edar produk obat, obat tradisional, kosmetik, suplemen makanan dan makanan yang bersumber, mengandung, dari bahan tertentu dan atau mengandung alkohol. Jakarta: BPOM;2009.

Badan Pusat Statistik. Sensus penduduk 2010-penduduk menurut wilayah dan agama yang dianut. Jakarta: BPS;2010.

Easterbrook C, Maddern G. Porcine and bovine surgical products: jewish, muslim, and hindu perspectives. Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):366–70.

Hargianti Dini Iswandari. Aspek hukum penyelenggaraan praktik kedokteran: suatu tinjauan berdasarkan undang-undang No. 9/2004 tentang praktik kedokteran. Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Kesehatan. 2006;9(2):52–7.

Turpin SM, Marais MA. Decision-making: theory and practice. OriON. 2004;20(2):143–60.

Letendre MC, Tham LCJ. Family and healthcare decision making: implications for bioethics in China. Stud Bioethica. 2011;4(3):25–33.

Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513–6.

Gavgani VZ, Qeisari E, Jafarabadi MA. Health information seeking behavior (HISB): a study of a developing country. Library Philosophy and Practice [e-journal] 2013 [cited 2014 December 17]. Available from:

Kagoya HR, Kibuule D, Mitonga KH, Ekirapa-Kiracho E, Ssempebwa JC. Awareness of responsiveness to and practice of patients’ rights at Uganda’s national referral hospital. Afr J Prm Health Care Fam Med. 2013;5(1):1–7.

Entwistle, Vikki A, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):741–5.

Truog RD. Patients and doctors-the evolution of a relationship. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):581–5.

Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract, 2008;11(1):36–42.

Hammami MM, Al-Gaai EA, Al-Jawarneh Y, Amer H, Hammami MB, Eissa A, et al. Patients’ perceived purpose of clinical informed consent: Mill’s individual autonomy model is preferred. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15(1):2–12.

 This Journal indexed by


Creative Commons License
AMJ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


View My Stats