Derek W Braverman1, Brian S Marcus2, Paul G Wakim3, Mark R Mercurio2, Gary S Kopf2. 1. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: derek.braverman@nih.gov. 2. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health care professionals (HCPs) are crucial to physician-assisted death (PAD) provision. OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively assess the favorability of justifications for or against PAD legalization among HCPs, the effect of the terms "suicide" and "euthanasia" on their views and their support for three forms of PAD. METHODS: Our questionnaire presented three cases: physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia for a competent patient, and euthanasia for an incompetent patient with an advance directive for euthanasia. Respondents judged whether each case was ethical and should be legal and selected their justifications from commonly cited reasons. The sample included physician clinicians, researchers, nonphysician clinicians, and other nonclinical staff at a major academic medical center. RESULTS: Of 221 HCPs, the majority thought that each case was ethical and should be legal. In order of declining favorability, justifications supporting PAD legalization were relief of suffering, right to die, mercy, acceptance of death, nonabandonment, and saving money for the health care system; opposing justifications were the slippery slope argument, unnecessary due to palliative care, killing patients is wrong, religious views, and suicide is wrong. The use of suicide and euthanasia terminology did not affect responses. Participants preferred physician-assisted suicide to euthanasia for a competent patient (P < 0.0001) and euthanasia for an incompetent patient to euthanasia for a competent patient (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: HCPs endorsed patient-centered justifications over other reasons, including role-specific duties. Suicide and euthanasia language did not bias HCPs against PAD, challenging claims that such value-laden terms hinder dialogue. More research is required to understand the significance of competency in shaping attitudes toward PAD. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: Health care professionals (HCPs) are crucial to physician-assisted death (PAD) provision. OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively assess the favorability of justifications for or against PAD legalization among HCPs, the effect of the terms "suicide" and "euthanasia" on their views and their support for three forms of PAD. METHODS: Our questionnaire presented three cases: physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia for a competent patient, and euthanasia for an incompetent patient with an advance directive for euthanasia. Respondents judged whether each case was ethical and should be legal and selected their justifications from commonly cited reasons. The sample included physician clinicians, researchers, nonphysician clinicians, and other nonclinical staff at a major academic medical center. RESULTS: Of 221 HCPs, the majority thought that each case was ethical and should be legal. In order of declining favorability, justifications supporting PAD legalization were relief of suffering, right to die, mercy, acceptance of death, nonabandonment, and saving money for the health care system; opposing justifications were the slippery slope argument, unnecessary due to palliative care, killing patients is wrong, religious views, and suicide is wrong. The use of suicide and euthanasia terminology did not affect responses. Participants preferred physician-assisted suicide to euthanasia for a competent patient (P < 0.0001) and euthanasia for an incompetent patient to euthanasia for a competent patient (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: HCPs endorsed patient-centered justifications over other reasons, including role-specific duties. Suicide and euthanasia language did not bias HCPs against PAD, challenging claims that such value-laden terms hinder dialogue. More research is required to understand the significance of competency in shaping attitudes toward PAD. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Agessandro Abrahao; James Downar; Hanika Pinto; Nicolas Dupré; Aaron Izenberg; William Kingston; Lawrence Korngut; Colleen O'Connell; Nicolae Petrescu; Christen Shoesmith; Anu Tandon; Ana Beatriz Vargas-Santos; Lorne Zinman Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Agnes van der Heide; Luc Deliens; Karin Faisst; Tore Nilstun; Michael Norup; Eugenio Paci; Gerrit van der Wal; Paul J van der Maas Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-02 Impact factor: 79.321