BACKGROUND: A bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK has been proposed in Parliament's House of Lords three times since 2003. The House of Lords Select Committee concluded in 2005 that 'the few attempts to understand the basis of doctors' views have shown equivocal data varying over time'. Fresh research was recommended to gain a fuller understanding of health sector views. AIM: To examine GPs' views of the practice of physician-assisted suicide as defined by the 2005/2006 House of Lords (Joffe) Bill and views of their role in the proposed legislation; and to explore the influences determining GPs' views on physician-assisted suicide. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Primary care in South London, England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with GPs were conducted by a lead interviewer and analysed in a search for themes, using the framework approach. RESULTS: Thirteen GPs were interviewed. GPs who had not personally witnessed terminal suffering that could justify assisted dying were against the legislation. Some GPs felt their personal religious views, which regarded assisted dying as morally wrong, could not be the basis of a generalisable medical ethic for others. GPs who had witnessed a person's suffering that, in their opinion, justified physician-assisted suicide were in favour of legislative change. Some GPs felt a specialist referral pathway to provide assisted dying would help to ensure proper standards were met. CONCLUSION: GPs' views on physician-assisted suicide ranged from support to opposition, depending principally on their interpretation of their experience of patients' suffering at the end of life. The goal to lessen suffering of the terminally ill, and apprehensions about patients being harmed, were common to both groups. Respect for autonomy and the right of self-determination versus the need to protect vulnerable people from the potential for harm from social coercion were the dominant themes.
BACKGROUND: A bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK has been proposed in Parliament's House of Lords three times since 2003. The House of Lords Select Committee concluded in 2005 that 'the few attempts to understand the basis of doctors' views have shown equivocal data varying over time'. Fresh research was recommended to gain a fuller understanding of health sector views. AIM: To examine GPs' views of the practice of physician-assisted suicide as defined by the 2005/2006 House of Lords (Joffe) Bill and views of their role in the proposed legislation; and to explore the influences determining GPs' views on physician-assisted suicide. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Primary care in South London, England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with GPs were conducted by a lead interviewer and analysed in a search for themes, using the framework approach. RESULTS: Thirteen GPs were interviewed. GPs who had not personally witnessed terminal suffering that could justify assisted dying were against the legislation. Some GPs felt their personal religious views, which regarded assisted dying as morally wrong, could not be the basis of a generalisable medical ethic for others. GPs who had witnessed a person's suffering that, in their opinion, justified physician-assisted suicide were in favour of legislative change. Some GPs felt a specialist referral pathway to provide assisted dying would help to ensure proper standards were met. CONCLUSION: GPs' views on physician-assisted suicide ranged from support to opposition, depending principally on their interpretation of their experience of patients' suffering at the end of life. The goal to lessen suffering of the terminally ill, and apprehensions about patients being harmed, were common to both groups. Respect for autonomy and the right of self-determination versus the need to protect vulnerable people from the potential for harm from social coercion were the dominant themes.
Authors: Diana Pasterfield; Clare Wilkinson; Ilora G Finlay; Richard D Neal; Nicholas J Hulbert Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Alexa Craig; Beth Cronin; William Eward; James Metz; Logan Murray; Gail Rose; Eric Suess; Maria E Vergara Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.903