OBJECTIVES: To review studies over a 20-year period that assess the attitudes of UK doctors concerning active, voluntary euthanasia (AVE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), assess efforts to minimise bias in included studies, determine the effect of subgroup variables (e.g. age, gender) on doctors' attitudes, and make recommendations for future research. DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases, four pertinent journals, reference lists of included studies. REVIEW METHODS: Literature search of English articles between January 1990 and April 2010. Studies were excluded if they did not present independent data (e.g. commentaries) or if they related to doctors outside the UK, patients younger than 18 years old, terminal sedation, withdrawing or withholding treatment, or double-effect. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. RESULTS: Following study selection and data extraction, 15 studies were included. UK doctors oppose the introduction of both AVE and PAS in the majority of studies. Degree of religiosity appeared as a statistically significant factor in influencing doctors' attitudes. The top three themes in the qualitative analysis were the provision of palliative care, adequate safeguards in the event of AVE or PAS being introduced, and a profession to facilitate AVE or PAS that does not include doctors. CONCLUSIONS: UK doctors appear to oppose the introduction of AVE and PAS, even when one considers the methodological limitations of included studies. Attempts to minimise bias in included studies varied. Further studies are necessary to establish if subgroup variables other than degree of religiosity influence attitudes, and to thoroughly explore the qualitative themes that appeared.
OBJECTIVES: To review studies over a 20-year period that assess the attitudes of UK doctors concerning active, voluntary euthanasia (AVE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), assess efforts to minimise bias in included studies, determine the effect of subgroup variables (e.g. age, gender) on doctors' attitudes, and make recommendations for future research. DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases, four pertinent journals, reference lists of included studies. REVIEW METHODS: Literature search of English articles between January 1990 and April 2010. Studies were excluded if they did not present independent data (e.g. commentaries) or if they related to doctors outside the UK, patients younger than 18 years old, terminal sedation, withdrawing or withholding treatment, or double-effect. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. RESULTS: Following study selection and data extraction, 15 studies were included. UK doctors oppose the introduction of both AVE and PAS in the majority of studies. Degree of religiosity appeared as a statistically significant factor in influencing doctors' attitudes. The top three themes in the qualitative analysis were the provision of palliative care, adequate safeguards in the event of AVE or PAS being introduced, and a profession to facilitate AVE or PAS that does not include doctors. CONCLUSIONS: UK doctors appear to oppose the introduction of AVE and PAS, even when one considers the methodological limitations of included studies. Attempts to minimise bias in included studies varied. Further studies are necessary to establish if subgroup variables other than degree of religiosity influence attitudes, and to thoroughly explore the qualitative themes that appeared.
Authors: Sarah Ziegler; Margareta Schmid; Matthias Bopp; Georg Bosshard; Milo Alan Puhan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ching Sin Siau; Lei-Hum Wee; Suzaily Wahab; Uma Visvalingam; Seen Heng Yeoh; Nur Atikah Abdul Halim; Norhayati Ibrahim Journal: J Res Nurs Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Wojciech Leppert; Leszek Gottwald; Mikolaj Majkowicz; Sylwia Kazmierczak-Lukaszewicz; Maria Forycka; Aleksandra Cialkowska-Rysz; Aleksandra Kotlinska-Lemieszek Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Keren Dopelt; Dganit Cohen; Einat Amar-Krispel; Nadav Davidovitch; Paul Barach Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 3.390