BackgroundEuthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS) are highly debated upon particularly in the light of medical advancement and an aging society. Little is known about the professionals’ willingness to perform these practices particularly among those engaged in the field of palliative care and pain management. Thus a study was performed among those professionals.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was handed out to all participants of a palliative care congress and a pain symposium in 2013. The questionnaire consisted of 8 questions regarding end of life decisions. Proposed patient vignettes were used.ResultsA total of 470 eligible questionnaires were returned, 198 by physicians, 272 by nurses. The response rate was 64 %. The majority of professionals were reluctant to perform euthanasia or PAS: 5.3 % of the respondents would be willing to perform euthanasia on a patient with a terminal illness if asked to do so. The reluctance grew in case of a patient with a non-terminal illness. The respondents were more willing to perform PAS than euthanasia. Nurses were more reluctant to take action as opposed to the physicians. The majority of the respondents would attempt to treat the patient’s symptoms first before considering life-ending measures. As regards any decision making process the majority would consult with a colleague.ConclusionsThis is the first German study to ask about the willingness of professionals to take action as regards euthanasia and PAS without biased phrasing. As opposed to the general acceptance that is respectively high, the actual willingness to perform life-ending measures is low. The German debate on physician assisted suicide and its possible legalization should also incorporate clarifications regarding the responsibility who should eventually perform these acts.
The fact that nurses had a more positive attitude towards euthanasia and PAS and that all respondents accepted life-ending acts for themselves more than for their patients hints to still existing severe deficits in Germany.
IntroductionAdvance directives (AD) play a central role in end-of-life treatments, intensive care, and palliative care. However, little is known about the experiences of healthcare professionals with ADs. This study reports on palliative care professionals’ views on advance directives (AD).MethodsA questionnaire was handed out to attendants of a palliative care symposium.ResultsComplete answers were obtained from 126 physicians and 276 nurses. Almost all physicians and nurses had treated patients with an AD, and the majority more than 10 patients. The most frequent refusal by the patients was resuscitation (87.8%) followed by intensive care (79.1%), artificial ventilation, and nutrition. The most frequent wish was pain therapy (92.3%) followed by allowing the natural course of the illness (64.4%). The wish for hospice treatment (44.8%) or spiritual care (39.3%) was less frequent.DiscussionThe results hint at fears and deficits in the care of patients at the end of life. Often the quality of life and not the quantity of days remaining is in the center of a patient’s will and points to the growing importance of palliative care.ConclusionADs are well established among palliative care professionals and regarded as helpful for patients at the end of life.
This study reports on German physicians’ views on legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, comparing this with a similar survey of UK doctors. A questionnaire was handed out to attendants of a palliative care and a pain symposium. Complete answers were obtained from 137 physicians. Similar to the UK study, about 30% of the physicians surveyed support euthanasia in case of terminal illness and more support physician-assisted suicide. In contrast, in both countries, a great majority of physicians oppose medical involvement in hastening death in non-terminal illnesses. The public and parliamentary discussion should face this opposition to assisted suicide by pain and palliative specialists.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40122-014-0029-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Since 1975, the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association (WMA) has clearly required ethics committee approval for research into humans. Nevertheless, this Declaration is violated quite often. As many English-language publications have addressed the theme of ethics board approval in theses and other published works, it is now to be investigated in Germany for the first time.From 2013 to 2014, a total of 1,482 medical theses at four selected universities in addition to three German-language scientific journals were reviewed. In 543 theses, reference to ethics approval would have been required according to the criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki.However, ethics approval was stated in only 58.7% of cases, and even less frequently if the prevailing doctoral regulations or instructions did not refer to the necessity of obtaining ethics approval. Theses on pediatrics mentioned ethics approval most frequently (78.6%), whereas the proportion of surgical papers was the lowest (34.9%). Among the journals, Der Nervenarzt mentioned ethics approval most frequently (59.4%) and Der Chirurg least frequently (30%).Our results point to significant deficits in mentioning ethics approval in medical theses and publications. These deficits could easily be compensated for by a thorough approach of the referees of doctoral regulations and by journal reviewers and editors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.