Active and passive euthanasia.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Decision Making↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Euthanasia, Active”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Nutritional discontinuation: active or passive euthanasia?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Decision Making↗
Active and passive euthanasia: an impertinent distinction?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Euthanasia↗
The morality of active and passive euthanasia.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Ethics, Medical↗
Voluntary euthanasia in Northern Ireland: general practitioners' beliefs, experiences, and actions.
BACKGROUND: There has been much recent interest in the press and among the profession on the subject of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The BMA recently conducted a 'consensus conference' over the internet to collect views on physician-assisted suicide. Any surveys to date have addressed a variety of specialties; however, no recent surveys have looked at general practitioner (GP) attitudes and experiences. AIM: To explore the attitudes of GPs in Northern Ireland towards the issue of patient requests for euthanasia, their nature, and doctors' experiences of such requests. METHOD: An anonymous, confidential postal survey of all (1053) GP principals in Northern Ireland. RESULTS: Seventy per cent of responders believe that passive euthanasia is both morally and ethically acceptable. Fewer (49%) would be prepared to take part in passive euthanasia. However, over 70% of physicians responding consider physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia to be wrong. Thirty per cent of responders have received requests from patients for euthanasia in the past five years. One hundred and seven doctors gave information about these requests. Thirty-nine out of 54 patient requests for passive euthanasia had been complied with, as had one of 19 requests for physician-assisted suicide and four out of 38 patient requests for active euthanasia. Doctors perceived the main reasons why patients sought euthanasia was because of fear of loss of dignity and fear of being a burden to others. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of GPs support passive euthanasia, they, in common with those who approve of assisted suicide and active euthanasia, often express a reluctance to take part in such actions. This may reflect the moral, legal, and emotional dilemmas doctors encounter when facing end-of-life decisions.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Hungarian paediatricians' attitudes regarding the treatment and non-treatment of defective newborns: a comparative study.
CONCLUSION: The four compared surveys clearly show that paediatricians from different backgrounds encounter these moral dilemmas in their everyday practice. Hungarian paediatricians facing morally significant decisions of discontinuation of treatment in defective newborns were permissive toward passive euthanasia like their Australian and Canadian colleagues, but were almost unanimously against active euthanasia like their Polish colleagues. The results of our study revealed a strong paternalistic attitude among Hungarian doctors, unwillingness to include other professionals in a discussion of moral problems and neglect of the nurses' views in these matters. Many physicians in the Hungarian study group were not aware of the legal ramifications in such cases. These findings were similar to the results of the Polish study. It is plausible that the paternalistic attitude and ignorance of the relevant law is common in all 'former' socialist countries. The Australian, Canadian and Hungarian doctors displayed more understanding and tolerance towards passive euthanasia. Many physicians in all study groups seemed to be not familiar with the legal regulations of their own country. The paediatricians of the four studies showed the greatest difference in their attitudes towards active euthanasia, with the Australian community being more permissive, the Canadian, Polish and Hungarian community rejecting it.
Attitude↗
The view of religions toward euthanasia and extraordinary treatments in Japan.
388 Japanese religious groups--143 Shinto, 157 Buddhist, 58 Christian and 30 others--were asked to answer questions regarding several forms of euthanasia and extraordinary treatment during the dying process. Passive euthanasia and indirect euthanasia were accepted by around 70% of the respondents. Active euthanasia was favored by less than 20% of them. Christians were less supportive of euthanasia than practitioners of other religions. Shinto and Buddhist corporations advocated "being natural," when medical treatment became futile at the terminal stage. Religionists' views may deepen the discussion of end-of-life issues.
Attitude↗
Observations on the rejection of physician-assisted suicide: a Roman Catholic perspective.
Roman Catholic moral theology follows a centuries-old tradition of moral reflection. Contemporary Roman Catholic moral theory applies these traditional arguments to the realm of medical ethics, including the issues of active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Unavoidable moral limits on licit medical intervention sometimes require that the moral duty to treat cede to the duty to cease treatment when measures become more harmful than beneficial to the patient. This does not reduce the need for the compassionate use of palliative care in response to suffering. However, it does mean that rather than being excessively committed to maintaining mere biological human life, or actively seeking death, that we learn a sober realism about the limits of human life. Catholic moral analysis examines an act objectively, both in its relation to the agent and as a material event in the world. This allows both the virtuous or vicious intentions of the agent and the effects of the action to be included in its moral evaluation. Thus, Catholic moral analysis is both quasi-deontological and quasi-consequentialist. Objectively, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as acts of deliberate killing, are seen as repugnant, in that they fail to incarnate a benign inner intention or to form an agent in virtue. Catholic moral theology is extremely skeptical that an act of intending death directly can be consonant with a sincere compassion for the dying, suffering person and views it as a direct negation of the precious gift of human life.
Analgesia↗
Sedation before ventilator withdrawal: can it be justified by double effect and called "allowing a patient to die"
... Recognizing that sedation and ventilator withdrawal have a causal impact on a patient's death does not open the door to active euthanasia but helps resist it by showing clearly where the debate centers. The heart of the euthanasia issue is not whether providers play a causal role in patients' deaths. They obviously often do when they withdraw burdensome or futile treatment or provide comfort, and these actions can be morally justified in appropriate circumstances. The key point is whether we can morally justify physicians playing two stronger causal roles: providing drugs and information for suicide and doing something in order to kill their patients. Before we can agree with those ethicists who argue that one can justify assisted suicide and active euthanasia despite the moral tradition that has shunned these causal roles, they must clearly show that the human good -- the good of the professions and of society at large, as well as the good of patients -- will be better served by physicians assisting in suicide and giving lethal injections....
Altruism↗
Aid-in-dying: should we decriminalize physician-assisted suicide and physician-committed euthanasia?
Recent news stories, medical journal articles, and two state voter referenda have publicized physicians' providing their patients with aid-in-dying. This Note distinguishes two components of aid-in-dying: physician-assisted suicide and physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia. The Note traces these components' distinct historical and legal treatments and critically examines arguments for and against both types of action. This Note concludes that aid-in-dying measures should limit legalization initiatives to physician-assisted suicide and should not embrace physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia.
Ethics, Medical↗
[An inquiry among medical students. No to legalization of euthanasia, but yes to dropped charges or remission of sentence].
In a questionnaire to medical students in Sweden, only 6 out of 135 answered that they wanted voluntary active euthanasia to be legalized. However, most of the students were of the opinion that the charges brought against the physician could be withdrawn pending assessment by a public prosecutor (55), or alternatively, that remission of sentence could be granted pending assessment by a court (45). A somewhat smaller group (26) answered that prison corresponding to the sentence for manslaughter was reasonable. Only 3 students considered voluntary active euthanasia to be murder. Legal monitoring of each case of active euthanasia was very important to these medical students, but many answered that under specific conditions there should be no punishment.
Attitude to Death↗
[Physician practice patterns and attitudes to euthanasia in Germany. A representative survey of physicians].
Growing life expectancy and increasing pharmaceutical and technical methods in medicine are leading to more and more discussions among the general population and among physicians as to whether methods to shorten the sufferings of mortally ill persons should be legalised further. In Australia 60% of physicians wish to be able to perform active euthanasia if this would be legal. In the Netherlands physicians do not commit an offence if they perform euthanasia on the basis of ethically consented rules. In the FRG the National Board of Physicians (Bundesärztekammer) still rejects any liberalisation concerning active euthanasia. However, little is known of the attitudes and behaviour of physicians concerning the questions of active and passive euthanasia. Sponsored by Gruner and Jahr publishers for a magazine "Stern" publication we conducted a representative study among physicians working in hospitals and their colleagues in free practices concerning this topic. Beginning with qualitative interviews with 50 physicians we tested the questionnaire developed and looked for the data production method best fitting for this difficult matter resulting in telephone interviews or a self-administered questionnaire. In the main study a representative sample of n = 282 physicians in free practices and n = 191 physicians in hospitals were interviewed. The response rates were 94% and 51% respectively. Analysis of non-responses did not indicate any bias. Half of the physicians think that a broader discussion on euthanasia is necessary, 34% disagree and 17% consider even a discussion already dangerous. 6% of the physicians in hospitals and 11% in free practices have already experienced methods of active euthanasia. Half of the physicians have seen patients who strongly wished euthanasia, a situation which happens once in every two years. The majority of physicians feel a deep understanding but only a minority of 4% comply with the wish. The vast majority of physicians advocate indirect euthanasia. However, they experience difficulties in defining the difference between active and passive euthanasia in a concrete situation. Summing up, our data indicate that a broader and open discussion on euthanasia seems necessary even if this discussion in Germany will be even more difficult than in other countries due to our recent past. The discussion will be reopened by a proposal on guidelines concerning euthanasia launched by the German National Board of Physician
Aged↗
Patients' knowledge of options at the end of life: ignorance in the face of death.
CONTEXT: Effectiveness of legislation promoting advance directives and legalizing physician-assisted suicide depends on patients' understanding their legal options about end-of-life care. However, outpatients' understanding of their legal options at the end of life has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the percentage of outpatients who are informed about 4 areas relevant to end-of-life care: refusal and withdrawal of lifesaving treatments, physician-assisted suicide, active euthanasia, and double effect; and to determine whether authoring advance directives, experiencing illness, acting as a proxy for health care decisions, and caring for an ill loved one are associated with better knowledge in end-of-life care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One thousand consecutive English-speaking, adult patients attending 1 university-based internal medicine clinic and 3 community-based, university-affiliated, mixed internal medicine and family practice clinics in Oregon during May and June 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of correct responses in the 4 topic areas and total knowledge score, adjusted for demographic (eg, age, race, educational level, income level, marital status) and experiential (eg, health, proxy decision making, advance directives, and death of a loved one) factors. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients invited to participate, 728 (73%) consented and completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. A total of 69% of respondents answered correctly regarding refusal of treatment, 46% for withdrawal of treatment, 23% for assisted suicide, 32% for active euthanasia, and 41% for double effect. Sixty-two percent of respondents did not distinguish between assisted suicide and euthanasia. After adjustment for other covariates, better knowledge was significantly associated with white race (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.2), having at least a college degree (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.7), and having been a proxy for health care decisions (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). Personal experience with illness (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5), death or illness of a loved one (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7), and authoring an advance directive (OR,1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-2.0) were not associated with better knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of outpatients at university-affiliated clinics in Oregon appear to misunderstand options in end-of-life care. Our results suggest that greater public knowledge about end-of-life care is needed, and advance care planning must be preceded by education about options in end-of-life care. JAMA. 2000;284:2483-2488.
Adult↗
The euthanasia debate.
Debates about the moral dilemmas of euthanasia date back to ancient times. Many of the historical arguments used for and against the practice remain valid today. Indeed, any form of discussion on the subject often provokes emotive responses, both from members of the medical profession and the general public. For this reason alone, the issue will continue to be debated at all levels of society. There are, however, other factors that ensure euthanasia will remain a subject of major controversy within medical, legal and governmental bodies. Firstly, the act of euthanasia itself is illegal, yet in its passive form occurs on a daily basis in many of our hospitals (1). Secondly, medical advances have made it possible to artificially prolong the life of an increasing number of patients far beyond what was possible only a few years ago. Furthermore, we must all contend with the reality that financial constraints are an important consideration in modern health care provision. Finally, there is an ethical difficulty in interpreting the concept of a patient's right, or autonomy, versus the rights and duty of a doctor. Before attempting to answer the questions posed by these issues, it is important to have some accurate definitions of both euthanasia and of the concept of morality. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" (2). The term can be further divided into voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The former is said to occur if a competent patient makes an informed request for a life terminating event and the latter can be used if a patient does not give informed and specific consent for such treatment. It is the occurrence of involuntary euthanasia which forms one of the main arguments against legalisation. This is discussed in greater detail below. Euthanasia is frequently separated into active and passive forms. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful. They are, however, used in the literature and in discussion and consequently should be understood. Active euthanasia takes place if deliberate steps are taken to end a patient's life; this would include administration of potassium containing compounds to induce cardiac arrest, a practice that is illegal in this country. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure. Many people, therefore, regard it as an acceptable facet of good professional practice.
Ethics, Medical↗
[Terminal medical interventions: psychosocial, medical, ethical and legal aspects].
We give an overview of the available medical solutions to help a patient with refractory symptoms at the end of his life. Patient "competence" must first be evaluated and, even if their diagnosis is difficult, organic mental disorders and depression must be diagnosed and adequately treated to allow a real, personal and honest dialog. Administration of high doses of morphine is frequently used at the end of life not only to fully relieve pain but also to accelerate death, even if this is not clearly stated. This technique is not devoid of hypocrisy and high doses of morphine can have quite unpleasant side effects. Treatment withdrawal or withholding is generally not sufficient to allow a correct end of life. The arrest of ventilation, dialysis, artificial nutrition and even more hydration must often be coupled with techniques inducing unconsciousness, which makes imprecise the limits between such a "passive" ending of life and "active" euthanasia. The technique of terminal sedation, frequently based on the use of midazolam, has been more recently introduced in some palliative care units. Such a "controlled sedation" is supposed to allow a "natural" death by inducing a profound sleep. In opposition with active euthanasia, which allows a quiet and rapid death at a moment chosen by the patient himself, this technique of "sedation" has an undetermined duration, has legal implications which could be viewed as quite similar as the ones of euthanasia, and, moreover, this prolonged agony can be extremely stressful and distressing for the family. Medical-assisted suicide is allowed in The Netherlands under the same conditions as euthanasia. Death is generally obtained after a few hours but the technique is not always successful and the process of death can sometimes be prolonged and uncomfortable. This technique can nevertheless be preferred by some physicians and patients. As compared to active euthanasia, the proportion of medically-assisted suicides (1/6) is low in The Netherlands. Euthanasia is the only technique able to induce a peaceful and rapid death. The proportion of various techniques to actively induce death is probably quite similar in our country than in The Netherlands but, most of the time, these interventions occur at the very end of life when the patient is no longer able to participate in the decision process and thus occur without his explicit request. We think that, as for all medical decisions, the use of one or the other of these various techniques should be selected after a quiet and free discussion between the patient and his physician, preferably in advance and not in a situation of emergency and panic.
Belgium↗
Attitudes toward euthanasia in Hong Kong--a comparison between physicians and the general public.
This article reports the findings of a cross-sectional study that compared the attitudes of 618 respondents of a general household survey and a random sample of 1,197 physicians toward different types of euthanasia in Hong Kong. The general public was found to agree with active euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia and was neutral about passive euthanasia. On the other hand, physicians agreed with passive euthanasia, were neutral about non-voluntary euthanasia, and disagreed with active euthanasia. Factors affecting the respondents' attitudes were also explored. The article ends with policy and research implications of the findings.
Attitude↗
[Notes on euthanasia].
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human life is held to be sacred, a semblance of the divine and a gift from God which the individual cannot dispose of at his or her own will. Hence, these monotheistic religions have made of the crime of murder a transgression of God's own commandment not to kill and have extended the applicability of this commandment to the practice of euthanasia and suicide. On the other hand, some non-religious traditions offer plausible reasons favoring euthanasia. This is a delicate matter for physicians, since the Hippocratic tradition forbids euthanasia and because as care-givers they must also bear the psychological, moral and emotional burden of carrying it out. Physicians are trained to preserve life but not to bring it to an end. As human beings, they must always respect the principle of nonmaleficence, and as physicians they must always respect as well the principle of beneficence. It is difficult to accept the fact that ending a human life can be an act of beneficence. In order to differentiate between passive and active euthanasia, the concept of proportionality of medical acts must be brought into consideration. For instance, using high doses of opiates to alleviate pain or withholding the use of an extraordinary method of treatment are not passive acts aimed at ending the life of a terminally ill patient, but medical acts that are reasonable, judicious and proportionate to the condition and irreversibility of a patient's illness. Therefore, so-called passive euthanasia cannot be considered the same as euthanasia. On the other hand, medically assisted suicide is a deceitful form of active euthanasia. The aim of this act is to cause death and the physician is morally responsible for such a death, since he is providing the means for bringing a human life to an end. Many times the desire to die expressed by terminally ill elderly and helpless patients is a request for help and an expression of reproach against a society that allows for their abandonment and neglect.
Euthanasia, Active↗
Longitudinal changes in attitudes of offspring concerning life-sustaining measures for their terminally ill parents.
OBJECTIVES: To define longitudinal changes in the attitudes of offspring concerning life-sustaining measures for their older, terminally ill parents and to determine whether experience of a "life event" influences such decisions. DESIGN: An attitudinal survey of three groups. SETTING: The geriatric department of a university-affiliated general hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one subjects who had been interviewed regarding life-sustaining treatment for their terminally ill parents were reinterviewed 6 years later. In addition, a control group composed of 116 participants was generated from patients visiting hospital outpatient clinics. The control group had no prior experience involving hospitalization of a first-degree relative as a result of a life-threatening situation. INTERVENTIONS: Each subject took part in a personal interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes regarding life-sustaining measures were assessed, and the subjects' sociodemographic and religious characteristics were noted. RESULTS: The attitudes of offspring in the acute phase situation and after the passage of 6 years were strikingly consistent. Twenty-one percent had requested the initiation of resuscitation in the acute phase ("real time"), and 27.4% said the same 6 years later. The provision of nutrition and medication was requested by approximately 70% of participants both at the acute phase and 6 years later. When comparing each individual's personal views at the interviews with all others, consistency in attitude was found among answers to most questions. When comparing the acute phase group with the control group, a significantly higher percentage of the former requested the initiation of resuscitation (48.3% vs 25%), whereas a smaller percentage preferred that the decision be made by the physician (3.5% vs 21.3%). Active euthanasia was requested by 6.5% of the acute phase group and 12.9% of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The decisions made by offspring regarding life-sustaining measures for their terminally ill parent at real time remain unchanged 6 years after the event. Exposure to a life event significantly affects the decision-making of the offspring of a terminally ill parent. However, the subject's attitude toward extreme solutions--opposing active euthanasia and requesting the administration of nutrition and medication--was not influenced by the fact that the subject had undergone a life event.
Adult Children↗