Search PubMed⌕ Search

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.

At least 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources
PubMed1992

'Aid-in-dying' and the taking of human life.

In several US states, the legalisation of euthanasia has become a question for voters to decide in public referenda. This democratic approach in politics is consistent with notions of personal autonomy in medicine, but the right of choice does not mean all choices are morally equal. A presumption against the taking of human life is embedded in the formative moral traditions of society; human life does not have absolute value, but we do and should impose a strict burden of justification for exceptions to the presumption, as exemplified by the moral criteria invoked to justify self-defence, capital punishment, or just war. These criteria can illuminate whether another exception should be carved out for doctor-assisted suicide or active euthanasia. It does not seem, in the United States at any rate, that all possible alternatives to affirm the control and dignity of the dying patient and to relieve pain and suffering, short of taking life, have been exhausted. Moreover, the procedural safeguards built into many proposals for legalised euthanasia would likely be undone by the sorry state of the US health care system, with its lack of universal access to care, chronic cost-containment ills, a litigious climate, and socioeconomic barriers to care. There remains, however, common ground in the quest for humane care of the dying.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1992

Euthanasia and abortion: personality correlates for the decision to terminate life.

The study addresses three research questions: (a) How well do level of conservatism and religiosity predict attitudes toward passive and active euthanasia? (b) What is the relationship between attitudes toward abortion and attitudes toward euthanasia? (c) How do personality variables relate differentially to these attitudes? Subjects were 168 Australian adults (68 men, 100 women). Initial analysis indicated no sex differences in attitudes toward the study's criterion variables. Descriptive statistics indicated general support for active and passive euthanasia and for abortion, although the majority of the respondents were found to be more accepting of passive than of active euthanasia. Multiple regression analyses indicated that level of conservatism was the most consistent predictor of attitudes toward euthanasia and abortion, whereas religiosity was found significantly to predict attitudes toward abortion only.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1995

Reflections on the state of current debate over physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This paper is part of a larger project. My overall aim is to argue that the evolution of familiar forms of termination of life sustaining treatment, constituting so called passive euthanasia, has severely undercut the logic of every form of reasoning that has traditionally been used to oppose active euthanasia and assistance in suicide. Basically, there are two such forms of traditional opposition, each represented in a range of different versions. There is the inevitable argument concerning social utilities -- that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide will have bad social consequences. But more fundamentally, the idea persists that killing is intrinsically worse than letting-die in some sense that justifies the current practice of prohibiting the first while allowing the latter. In this paper, I first consider this latter claim. My ultimate strategy, as I have said, is to show that the nature of certain things we have all come to approve regarding termination of treatment makes it next to impossible to convincingly explain, in either of these ways, what is wrong with certain forms of assistance in suicide and euthanasia. In the second part of this paper I take another step in this direction by discussing, in a preliminary way, a special case of the argument from social risks.

Enteral Nutrition↗
PubMed1998

Euthanasia and related practices worldwide.

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The "slippery slope" argument is briefly considered.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1996

[Survey among Argentine physicians on medical decisions concerning the end of life in patients: active and passive euthanasia, and relief of symptoms].

Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life (MDEL) have been poorly developed in the Argentine medical literature. On that basis, and presuming that MDEL occur frequently in the medical practice in our country (in spite of insufficient pre and postgraduate medical education on the matter), we have developed a survey on MDEL. It was conformed by a 13 multiple-choice question poll, which was answered by 172 physicians from Buenos Aires, suburban locations and La Plata. The questionnaire began with a professional profile and subsequently developed questions on medical, legal, ethical, religious and sociologic aspects of MDEL. The questions were based on the main or more frequent topics referred to MDEL, according to the medical literature between 1989 and 1994, researched through Medline. The poll was anonymous. Most of the questions could be answered based on the physician's attitudes toward MDEL; some required specific knowledge on the subject (as in the questions on legal matters). Three different MDEL were defined for this survey: active Euthanasia, Passive Euthanasia and Relief of Symptoms. Results showed that MDEL are frequent (69%) of the physicians have performed Relief of Symptoms, 58% Passive Euthanasia, and 7% Active Euthanasia) and that the physician's knowledge on the subject is poor and sparse. We concluded that more research on MDEL is needed in Argentina in order to support changes in medical education and legal background.

Argentina↗
PubMed2005

[The debate about the right to die].

The Right to Die is a debatable issue and some basic notions need to be clarified to discuss it. Death needs to be recognized as part of human life. The goal of medicine is to avoid pain and alleviate suffering, to prevent premature death and when this is not possible, to let it occur peacefully. The concept of euthanasia is unclear, which increases the confusion on end-of-life topics. The term euthanasia should be used only when referring to medical acts performed to produce the patient's death, with the intention of terminating his/her suffering. It is what is usually called "active" euthanasia, which can be voluntary or involuntary. It is essential to understand the difference between producing and allowing death. This will permit timely decisions about limiting or withdrawing treatments, that can be disproportionate or that are only prolonging suffering. Limiting treatments does not mean to abandon the patient but rather to redefine his needs, such as pain treatment, prevention of complications, and relief of suffering. The ethic rationale for these decisions is the respect to the dignity of human life, and the estimation of proportionality or futility of each treatment. The physician's duty with the patient at the end of his life is to assist him in dying according to his values and to minimize his distress.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1999

Physicians' own preferences to the limitation and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy.

While limiting and forgoing therapy at the end of life is now accepted on medical, ethical, moral and legal grounds, many Americans continue to die with heroic measures being taken to prevent their death. Recent studies have demonstrated that physicians frequently attend to their patients without knowledge of their preferences with regards to end-of-life issues. It is postulated that a physician's personal preferences with regard to the limitation and withdrawal of life support and active euthanasia would effect the discussion they had with their patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze end-of-life preferences of a diverse group of practicing physicians. The participants were active attending physicians at a community hospital, a rural referral center, a large tertiary care referral academic complex, and a specialized tertiary care referral center all within the United States. A questionnaire was developed which was mailed to attending physicians at the four participating medical centers. The respondents provided basic demographic data, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) preferences under various clinical circumstances as well as responses to a number of case vignettes. Six hundred and forty physicians responded to the survey. The mean age of the respondents was 46 years; 72% were male. In the event of a cardiac arrest less than 20% of respondents would want to undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the setting of chronic end stage organ failure; the positive response rate was 5% for metastatic cancer and 2% for Alzheimer's disease. If death was imminent, 87% of physicians indicated they would want treatment withdrawn. Similarly, 95% of respondents indicated that they would want treatment withdrawn should they be in a persistent vegetative state. Only 1% of respondents believed that health care providers should never remove or withhold life-sustaining therapy. Should they have advanced motor neuron disease, 38% of physicians indicated they would request that their life be ended. The majority of physicians surveyed volunteered that they would want life-sustaining measures to be limited at the end of their life. A significant number were in favor of active euthanasia. This study suggests that it is unlikely that physicians' personal beliefs in regards to end-of-life care result in the failure to discuss these issues with their patients.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1999

[Bioethics of dying].

The bioethical problems related to the dying person might be classified in four groups: 1) those of the society the person is involved in, 2) those of physicians and other health professionals, 3) those of the nursing staff in the broadest sense and 4) those connected with the dying person himself. The society must consider the death as a part and natural end of life. One of the most delicate problems related to patient-physician relationship is adequate information concerning the diagnosis and prognosis of the condition. A very complex problem is stopping or not introducing the treatment which cannot influence significantly the quality and length of life. Palliative therapy, although risky, should be introduced if suffering is great. The duty to alleviate suffering is more important than life prolongation. The nursing staff and family should honour the wishes of the dying. Active euthanasia legalization is too risky, especially for nonautonomous persons unable to express their will. In autonomous persons even the possibility of its realization could be the cause of extreme disturbances in patient/physician relationship. Active euthanasia, due to the involvement of public opinion, is already becoming a sociopolitical problem.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1992

Dying and 'euthanasia'.

Medical progress, secularisation of life, growing acceptance of individual human rights (including the right to refuse medical treatment) and of shared decision-making in medicine have focused public attention on the ways in which life may, and perhaps even ought to, be allowed to end in our complex modern era. Intense and thoughtful bio-ethical debate over many years has 'unpacked' the many different understandings and interpretations of the word euthanasia. The consequent conceptual clarification together with recognition and acknowledgement of psychological implications has facilitated a growing rational consensus on openly accepting the withholding and withdrawing of treatment (under defined conditions) within the realm of sound medical practice. This is clearly distinct from assisted suicide and active euthanasia which are generally considered unacceptable perversions of medical practice. Given the ability to sustain life for prolonged periods, often in a permanent state of unconsciousness, the unrealistic expectations of some medical personnel and the lay public, the severe constraints on health care facilities in South Africa and the totally inadequate allocation of resources for highly effective medical treatments, it is appropriate to re-open public debate on the limits of 'striving officiously to keep alive' and on the distinction between 'allowing to die' and 'killing'. Concern that 'rational' arguments reflect moral decay rather than moral progress keeps the debate open and focuses attention on some 'slippery slope' consequences.

Consensus↗
PubMed1997

Descriptions of suffering in connection with life values. Healthy individuals' reflections in interviews.

Nine semistructured interviews with attendant questions were conducted with the purpose of elucidating how healthy individuals describe suffering and life values in their reflections upon active euthanasia. In order to find the intended meaning in utterances, the interviews were interpreted step by step. The point of departure was the following question: What expressions of suffering and what expressions of life values can be found in the text? A connection was found between the interviewees' descriptions of suffering and life values in their reflections upon active euthanasia. The interviewees who considered close relations to be a value of life expressed suffering as dependence, compassion, violation, abandonment and feelings of guilt, while those to whom health was a value of life expressed suffering as torment, dependence, physical pain, feebleness, hopelessness and dying. Those who saw autonomy as a value of life expressed suffering as dependence and violation and those to whom doing good was a value of life expressed suffering as compassion. When organizing health care and deciding about the response to suffering, it seems important to strive for a response built upon the individual patient's description of suffering and life values.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Euthanasia and the quality of life debate.

Orthodox Christian ethics is grounded in the sacredness of life principle. Yet, it can accept a quality of life approach where "quality" refers not to capacities or states, but to the relationship between the patient's condition and the quest for transcendent life goals (Walter and Shannon, 1990). The true quality of human life derives from the vocation to stewardship, which enjoins an attitude of humble acceptance toward beneficial or "redemptive" suffering. The proper response to suffering in terminal cases is not active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide but appropriate pain management and personal care. In cases of PVS or deep coma, only the determination of higher brain death can warrant the withholding or withdrawing of food and hydration. Yet, artificial maintenance of biological existence is also immoral. Death is to be accepted and embraced as a transition to eternal life.

Attitude to Death↗
PubMed1994

Treatment limitation decisions under uncertainty: the value of subsequent euthanasia.

This paper examines how decisions to limit treatment to critically ill patients under uncertainty can be made rationally. Expected utility theory offers one way of making rational decisions under uncertainty. One problem with using this approach is that we may not know the value of each option. One rational course open is to treat until further information becomes available. However, treatment can limit the range of options open. With treatment, a patient may recover such that he no longer requires life-supporting treatment. However, his life may be not worth living. If active euthanasia of 'non-terminal' conditions is prohibited, the option of dying will no longer be available. Taking a rational 'wait and see' course may result in being trapped within an unbearable life. On the other hand, sometimes present practice 'lets nature take its course'. Critically ill patients are allowed to die because it is believed that their lives will be not worth living. It is likely that some patients are allowed to die when there is some objective chance of worthwhile future life. This paper argues that a policy of treating critically ill patients until the nature of future options can be better evaluated, in company with an offer of subsequent euthanasia where appropriate, allows a more rational and humane approach to treatment limitation decisions under uncertainty.

Computers↗
PubMed1986

Distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia.

The standard ways of distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia, act versus omission, and removal of ordinary versus removal of extraordinary care, do not have any clear moral significance. We have used particular aspects of the physician-patient relationship to make a morally significant distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is defined as the physician's abiding by the rational valid refusal of life-sustaining treatment of a patient or his surrogate decision-maker. Understanding passive euthanasia in this way makes it clear why, everything else being equal, there is no morally significant difference between discontinuing a treatment and not starting it, for example, taking a patient off a respirator versus not putting him on in the first place. It also makes clear why stopping the feeding and hydration of some patients is not merely morally permissible but is morally required. Patients may make a rational valid refusal of food and fluids just as they may of other kinds of life support, and what patients rationally refuse when competent holds its force when they become incompetent. By basing the distinction between active and passive euthanasia on the universally recognized moral force of a rational valid refusal, we have provided a clear foundation for the moral significance of this distinction. Our way of making the distinction preserves for patients the control over their lives that has sometimes been unjustifiably taken from them. It also eases the burden on doctors who no longer are forced to make use of ad hoc and confused distinctions in which they justifiably have little faith.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Palliative care, assisted suicide and euthanasia: nationwide questionnaire to Swedish physicians.

The objective of this study was to investigate what actually happens between physicians and adult patients in difficult end-of-life situations. We circulated an anonymous questionnaire to a randomized sample of 952 Swedish physicians registered in specialties comprising care of dying adult patients, 122 palliative care physicians, and 130 physicians from the Swedish Association for the Study of Pain. Of special interest were themes in conversations between the physicians and the patients, desires expressed by the patients, and actions performed by the physicians that might affect the patients' expected survival. The overall response rate was 79%. Of these, 63% of the randomized physicians, 95% of the palliative care physicians, and 43% of the Association for the Study of Pain physicians had more than occasionally treated dying adult patients during the past year. About half of them had discussed palliative care with all their dying patients, and more than half of the physicians had heard their patients expressing a wish to die. About one-third of all the physicians had given analgesic or other drugs in such doses that some of their patients' deaths were hastened. The same proportion had also been asked for active euthanasia, while 10% had been asked to assist suicide. No case of euthanasia and only a few cases of assisted suicide were reported. By implication, the study suggests that improving patients' awareness of the possibilities to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnoea during the final days of life is an important way to reduce requests for active euthanasia.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Open regulation and practice in assisted dying.

The Netherlands, Oregon and Switzerland are the only areas in the world where assistance in dying has legally been practised in recent years. This article provides a detailed comparison of the history of the origins, legislation, monitoring systems and the extent of assistance in dying in these three places. It shows that the actual practice in Switzerland which, unlike Oregon, also allows assistance in suicide by means of infusions or gastric tubes, can today be technically quite similar to the permitted practice of active euthanasia on request in the Netherlands. Considering the preconditions restricting these practices, Swiss regulations are the most open, in that the law requires neither a medical second opinion (as in both the Netherlands and Oregon) nor the existence of a terminal illness (as in Oregon) as prerequisite to assistance in dying. In 2001, the proportion of assisted deaths (as reported to the authorities) in all deaths was almost ten times higher in the Netherlands (1.5% of all deaths) then in Oregon (<0.1% of all deaths) or Switzerland (0.2% of all deaths). The analysis of the different normative concepts underlying legislation reveals that in the Netherlands the basis for non-prosecution lies in the conflict of the physician's duties to respect life versus relief of suffering, while in the USA and in Switzerland the right-to-die concept plays a major role. These two concepts allow appreciation of distinctions between the roles of the physician in end-of-life practices and between assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia.

Euthanasia↗
PubMed2002

[Euthenasia: attitudes, wishes and behavior of the public, patients and physicians].

The lack of compatibility in conventional medical treatment for patients suffering from terminal diseases or severe disabilities has become one of the more difficult problems of developed countries. Different types of passive and active euthanasia have been adopted as solutions to these new problems. These solutions, however, raise ethical and professional dilemmas, as well as controversies regarding economic and policy-making issues. This situation of social confusion and the publics anxiety regarding end-of-life care are reflected in the literature review, which shows significant discrepancies between physicians and the public in attitudes, preferences and behavior regarding the preferred and existent medical treatment at the end of life. The publics preferences regarding end-of-life care are relatively stable over time. However, the readiness of the public and physicians to accept these solutions increases over time. Considering these controversial solutions and the publics wishes to participate in the decision making process regarding end-of-life care, an increase in open communication and the degree of cooperation among physicians and their patients and family members is suggested. Advancing the treatment methods for severely ill patients, and improving the education of professional caregivers is another essential need. The development of satisfactory treatment alternatives for patients at the end of life may prevent the Israeli society from debating active euthanasia and lead to clear social agreements on passive euthanasia, including the developing of legal options which will enable people, who are interested, to gain control over their end-of-life care.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Medical murder by omission? The law and ethics of withholding and withdrawing treatment and tube feeding.

When is it lawful and ethical to withhold or withdraw treatment and tube feeding? In recent years, the courts have handed down important decisions and medical bodies have issued professional guidelines on withholding and withdrawing treatment and tube feeding. A major criticism of these decisions and guidelines has been that while they prohibit the intentional hastening of a patient's life by an act ('active euthanasia'), they permit the intentional hastening of a patient's death by omission ('passive euthanasia'); and they prohibit actively assisting suicide, but permit passively assisting suicide. By focusing on the landmark decision of the Law Lords in the Tony Bland case, and on the guidelines on withholding and withdrawing treatment and tube feeding issued by the British Medical Association, this paper considers whether this criticism is sound, and concludes that it is.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1997

[Treatment of patients with thromboses of the basilar artery and locked-in syndrome. An ethical dilemma].

Decisions regarding the extent of treatment of severely ill patients can be an ethical dilemma when life-prolonging intensive care contradicts the goal of avoiding unnecessary suffering on the part of the patient. Here we present the results of a written survey of physicians on neurological intensive care units in Germany regarding the treatment of patients with basilar artery thrombosis and locked-in syndrome. 52% of the 93 physicians who replied advocated not treating severe infections with antibiotics, 38% were in favor of stopping intensive care. In contrast, 55% recommended intubating the patient in the presence of swallowing disturbances and imminent aspiration. 58% were in favor of discussing these problems in detail with the patient, and 87% advocated discussing them with relatives. Nearly all physicians (97%) recommended using adequate amounts of opiates and benzodiazepines. In very rare cases, 99% would agree to the use of passive euthanasia and 19% to active euthanasia. These findings illustrate the current disagreement on some of the important treatment decisions among physicians on neurological intensive care units. An open exchange of views on these questions could facilitate the appropriate consideration of ethical matters in the treatment of these patients.

Adult↗