If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Objective
To determine attitudes among surgeons in Australia to assisted death, and the proportion of surgeons who have intentionally hastened death with or without an explicit request.
Design
Anonymous, cross‐sectional, mail‐out survey between August and November 1999
Participants
683 out of 992 eligible general surgeons (68.9% response rate).
Main outcome measures
Proportion of respondents answering affirmatively to questions about administering excessive doses of medication with an intention to hasten death.
Results
247 respondents (36.2%; 95% CI, 32.6%–39.9%) reported that, for the purpose of relieving a patient's suffering, they have given drugs in doses that they perceived to be greater than those required to relieve symptoms with the intention of hastening death. More than half of these (139 respondents; 20.4% of all respondents; 95% CI, 17.4%–23.6%) reported that they had never received an unambiguous request for a lethal dose of medication. Of all respondents, only 36 (5.3%; 95% CI, 2.9%–6.1%) reported that they had given a bolus lethal injection, or had provided the means to commit suicide, in response to an unambiguous request.
Conclusions
More than a third of surgeons surveyed reported giving drugs with an intention to hasten death, often in the absence of an explicit request. However, in many instances, this may involve the use of an infusion of analgesics or sedatives, and such actions may be difficult to distinguish from accepted palliative care, except on the basis of the doctor's self‐reported intention. Legal and moral distinctions based solely on a doctor's intention are problematic.
It is clear that women and their hospital care givers want to see improvements in the care given to women who miscarry However, disagreement exists as to how this improvement can be best achieved.
Community intervention trials are becoming increasingly popular as a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of health education and intervention strategies. Typically, units such as households, schools, towns, counties, are randomized to receive either intervention or control, then outcomes are measured on individuals within each of the units of randomization. It is well recognized that the design and analysis of such studies must account for the clustering of subjects within the units of randomization. Furthermore, there are usually both subject level and cluster level covariates that must be considered in the modelling process. While suitable methods are available for continuous outcomes, data analysis is more complicated when dichotomous outcomes are measured on each subject. This paper will compare and contrast several of the available methods that can be applied in such settings, including random effects models, generalized estimating equations and methods based on the calculation of 'design effects', as implemented in the computer package SUDAAN. For completeness, the paper will also compare these methods of analysis with more simplistic approaches based on the summary statistics. All the methods will be applied to a case study based on an adolescent anti-smoking intervention in Australia. The paper concludes with some general discussion and recommendations for routine design and analysis.
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.