Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Euthanasia”

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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers.

CONTEXT: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are highly controversial issues. While there are studies of seriously ill patients' interest in euthanasia and PAS, there are no data on the attitudes and desires of terminally ill patients regarding these issues. OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and PAS, whether they seriously were considering euthanasia and PAS for themselves, the stability of their desires, factors associated with their desires, and the proportion of patients who die from these interventions. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of terminally ill patients and their primary caregivers surveyed twice between March 1996 and July 1997. SETTING: Outpatient settings in 5 randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas and 1 rural county. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 988 patients identified by their physicians to be terminally ill with any disease except for human immunodeficiency virus infection (response rate, 87. 4%) and 893 patient-designated primary caregivers (response rate, 97. 6%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Support for euthanasia or PAS in standard scenarios; patient-expressed considerations and discussions of their desire for euthanasia or PAS; hoarding of drugs for suicide; patient death by euthanasia or PAS; and patient-reported sociodemographic factors and symptoms related to these outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 988 terminally ill patients, a total of 60.2% supported euthanasia or PAS in a hypothetical situation, but only 10. 6% reported seriously considering euthanasia or PAS for themselves. Factors associated with being less likely to consider euthanasia or PAS were feeling appreciated (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.82), being aged 65 years or older (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.82), and being African American (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0. 18-0.84). Factors associated with being more likely to consider euthanasia or PAS were depressive symptoms (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1. 49), substantial caregiving needs (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17), and pain (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.56). At the follow-up interview, half of the terminally ill patients who had considered euthanasia or PAS for themselves changed their minds, while an almost equal number began considering these interventions. Patients with depressive symptoms (OR, 5.29; 95% CI, 1.21-23.2) and dyspnea (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.26-2.22) were more likely to change their minds to consider euthanasia or PAS. According to the caregivers of the 256 decedents, 14 patients (5.6%) had discussed asking the physician for euthanasia or PAS and 6 (2.5%) had hoarded drugs. Ultimately, of the 256 decedents, 1 (0.4%) died by euthanasia or PAS, 1 unsuccessfully attempted suicide, and 1 repeatedly requested for her life to be ended but the family and physicians refused. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, a small proportion of terminally ill patients seriously considered euthanasia or PAS for themselves. Over a few months, half the patients changed their minds. Patients with depressive symptoms were more likely to change their minds about desiring euthanasia or PAS. JAMA. 2000;284:2460-2468.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

The practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States: adherence to proposed safeguards and effects on physicians.

CONTEXT: Despite intense debates about legalization, there are few data examining the details of actual euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) cases in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the practices of euthanasia and PAS are consistent with proposed safeguards and the effect on physicians of having performed euthanasia or PAS. DESIGN: Structured in-depth telephone interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected oncologists in the United States. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to primary and secondary safeguards for the practice of euthanasia and PAS; regret, comfort, and fear of prosecution from performing euthanasia or PAS. RESULTS: A total of 355 oncologists (72.6% response rate) were interviewed on euthanasia and PAS. On 2 screening questions, 56 oncologists (15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or PAS; 53 oncologists (94.6% response rate) participated in in-depth interviews. Thirty-eight of 53 oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or PAS. Twenty-three patients (60.5%) both initiated and repeated their request for euthanasia or PAS, but 6 patients (15.8%) did not participate in the decision for euthanasia or PAS. Thirty-seven patients (97.4%) were experiencing unremitting pain or such poor physical functioning they could not perform self-care. Physicians sought consultation in 15 cases (39.5%). Overall, oncologists adhered to all 3 main safeguards in 13 cases (34.2%): (1) having the patient initiate and repeat the request for euthanasia or PAS, (2) ensuring the patient was experiencing extreme physical pain or suffering, and (3) consulting with a colleague. Those who adhered to the safeguards had known their patients longer and tended to be more religious. In 28 cases (73.7%), the family supported the decision. In all cases of pain, patients were receiving narcotic analgesia. Fifteen patients (39.5%) were enrolled in a hospice. While 19 oncologists (52.6%) received comfort from having helped a patient with euthanasia or PAS, 9 (23.7%) regretted having performed euthanasia or PAS, and 15 (39.5%) feared prosecution. CONCLUSIONS: Intractable pain or poor physical functioning seem to be nearly absolute requirements for physicians to perform euthanasia or PAS. Only one third of cases are performed consistently with proposed safeguards. For some patients, end-of-life care that includes opioid analgesia and hospice care does not obviate their desire for euthanasia or PAS. While the majority of physicians seem comforted by their actions, some experience adverse consequences from having performed euthanasia or PAS.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1996

Alberta Euthanasia Survey: 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the opinions of Alberta physicians about active euthanasia had changed and to assess the determinants of potential changes in opinion. DESIGN: Follow-up survey (mailed questionnaire) of physicians included in the 1991 Alberta Euthanasia Survey. SETTING: Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 1391 physicians who participated in the 1991 survey 1291 (93%) had indicated that they were willing to take part in a follow-up survey. A follow-up questionnaire was mailed in 1994 to 1146 physicians who could be traced through the 1994 Medical Directory of the provincial college of physicians and surgeons; 25 questionnaires were returned because they could not be delivered. OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' opinions about (a) the morality of active euthanasia, (b) changes in the law to permit active euthanasia and (c) the practice of legalized euthanasia. RESULTS: Of the 1121 physicians sent a follow-up questionnaire 866 (77%) returned it completed. The responses of these same 866 physicians in 1991 provided a basis for comparison. Of the 866, 360 (42%) stated in the 1994 survey that it is sometimes right to practise active euthanasia; a similar proportion (384 [44%]) gave this response in 1991. However, other opinions changed significantly. In 1991, 250 of the respondents (29%) indicated that they would practise active euthanasia if it were legalized, as compared with 128 (15%) in 1994 (p < 0.01). In 1991, 429 (50%) of the respondents thought that the law should be changed to permit active euthanasia, as compared with 316 (37%) in 1994 (p < 0.01). Religious activity was the most important characteristic associated with changes in opinion. Despite the decrease in support for the practice and legalization of active euthanasia between 1991 and 1994, in both surveys at least 70% of those who responded to this question indicated that active euthanasia, if it were legalized, should be performed only by physicians and should be taught at medical sites. CONCLUSION: Alberta physicians' support for the practice and legalization of active euthanasia decreased considerably between 1991 and 1994. However, most physicians remain in favour of restricting active euthanasia, if it were legalized, to the medical profession. These results suggest a need for caution and deliberation when changes in the law concerning active euthanasia are examined.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Attitudes of oncologists, family doctors, medical students and lawyers to euthanasia.

The purpose of this survey was to define attitudes and opinions of two types of physicians, medical students and lawyers in the area of euthanasia and related issues and problems. A questionnaire was used as the source of data. There were four groups of test persons: oncologists, home care physicians (family doctors), third-year medical students and lawyers. The questionnaire included 22 questions, 4 of which concerned general characteristics of tested persons (including religious belief), while 18 referred to the problems of euthanasia. The total number of tested persons was 123, 55 men and 68 women with a median age of 38 +/- 11 years ( +/- SD). There were 30 test persons in the group of oncologists, 31 in the group of family doctors, 31 in the group of third-year students, and 31 in the group of lawyers. Between 97% and 100% of individuals gave scored responses to most items. More than half of the individuals (57%) were against euthanasia, and 61% are against the legalization of euthanasia. The views of doctors and medical students were similar (2/3 against) and significantly different from the view of lawyers (2/3 for, P < 0.01). The legalization of euthanasia is favored by 61% of lawyers, in contrast to 43%, 30% and 23% of oncologists, family doctors and medical students, respectively. Overall, 31% sais they would apply euthanasia if they were asked for it, and 36% that would if it had been legalized. Lawyers are twice as willing to perform euthanasia as students or physicians. The least ready to apply euthanasia are physicians working as oncologists (only 1 in 5). Compared with oncologists, one-third of home-care physicians would perform euthanasia anyway, whether legalized or not. Most of the test persons were of the opinion that euthanasia should be performed in the case of children born with a severe anomaly. None of the tested groups considered invalidity or being a burden to the family important reasons for the termination of somebody's life. Approximately 40% of responders believed that the decision for euthanasia should be made by the patient alone. Only lawyers were of the opinion that the misuse of euthanasia could be controlled. Our study shows that it is probably more important to determine factors associated with behavior pertaining to euthanasia in physicians working closely with suffering patients. Reducing suffering and launching a hospice movement and palliative care services might be the most appropriate way to deal with the problem of euthanasia.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

[Attitudes towards professional euthanasia in the range between grement in the society and personal preferences--results of a representative examination of the German general population].

Several surveys of the German population concerning the attitude towards euthanasia in patients with terminal illness yielded contradictory results, ranging from high acquisition to high refusal rates. After a critical discussion of the methodological concepts of these investigations, we present the results of a representative study of 1957 German persons (age range: 14 - 96 years) which was performed by the institute USUMA in February 2001. Four different types of euthanasia were included in the study: active, passive, and indirect euthanasia as well as physician's assisted suicide. The affirmative response categories were "declared will and unbearable pain", "declared will", "referred will", and "in the responsibility of the physician". Additionally, we asked to state the personal preference in the case of an own incurable illness. The resulting frequency distributions stress the autonomy of the patients (declared will) and the legal forms of professional euthanasia (passive and indirect euthanasia), independent from the degree of pain. The rank order of the hypothetic personal preferences was: passive euthanasia (26.1 %), active euthanasia (21.1 %), indirect euthanasia (13.1 %) and assisted suicide (6.2 %). For each category the hypothetic personal will to utilize euthanasia personally is markedly lower than the consent to legalize euthanasia in the society. This points to a diminished readiness of the population to seek for euthanasia. Persons aged 60 years and above deny all types of euthanasia significantly more often than younger persons. Persons with subjectively bad health status prefer the category "in the responsibility of the physician" more often than healthy subjects. The representative study proves that there is no polarized public opinion concerning euthanasia, rather there is a picture of high complexity.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

[Trends in the agents used for euthanasia and the relationship with the number of notifications].

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the relationship between the drugs used for euthanasia and its notification. DESIGN: Retrospective and descriptive. METHODS: By comparing the drugs used for euthanasia according to different components of studies carried out in 1990, 1995 and 2000, insight was obtained into the drugs used in all cases of euthanasia satisfying the definition thereof (death-certificate studies), those cases of euthanasia that, in addition, were defined as such by the physician (physician interviews), and the cases of euthanasia that, in addition, had been reported (reported case studies). RESULTS: In 2001, standard drugs for euthanasia were used in 76% of cases and opioids in 23%. Euthanasia with standard drugs was reported in 73% of cases in 1995, and in 71% of cases in 2000, while euthanasia with opioids was reported in 2% and 1% of cases, respectively. The total percentage of euthanasia reported was higher in 2001 than in 1995 (54% versus 44%), since in 2001 euthanasia was apparently performed more often with standard drugs and less with opioids. CONCLUSION: An increasing proportion of cases of euthanasia is being carried out with the drugs recommended for this purpose. Euthanasia with opioids was rarely reported. Possibly, physicians did not always consider these cases to be euthanasia.

Barbiturates↗
PubMed1996

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public.

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are pressing public issues. We aimed to collect empirical data on these controversial interventions, particularly on the attitudes and experiences of oncology patients. METHODS: We interviewed, by telephone with vignette-style questions, 155 oncology patients, 355 oncologists, and 193 members of the public to assess their attitudes and experiences in relation to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. FINDINGS: About two thirds of oncology patients and the public found euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide acceptable for patients with unremitting pain. Oncology patients and the public found euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide least acceptable in vignettes involving "burden on the family" and "life viewed as meaningless". In no vignette--even for patients with unremitting pain--did a majority of oncologists find euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide ethically acceptable. Patients actually experiencing pain were more likely to find euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide unacceptable. More than a quarter of oncology patients had seriously thought about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and nearly 12 percent had seriously discussed these interventions with physicians or others. Patients with depression and psychological distress were significantly more likely to have seriously discussed euthanasia, hoarded drugs, or read Final Exit. More than half of oncologists had received requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Nearly one in seven oncologists had carried out euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. INTERPRETATION: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are important issues in the care of terminally ill patients and while oncology patients experiencing pain are unlikely to desire these interventions patients with depression are more likely to request assistance in committing suicide. Patients who request such an intervention should be evaluated and, where appropriate, treated for depression before euthanasia can be discussed seriously.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Determinants of adoption and euthanasia of shelter dogs spayed or neutered in the university of california veterinary student surgery program compared to other shelter dogs.

Limited economic resources and pet overpopulation force animals shelters to consider euthanasia of adoptable animals every day. Veterinary medical schools can play a positive role in increasing pet adoption and combating overpopulation by providing free neutering for shelter animals. This retrospective cohort study illustrated that the cooperative efforts of a veterinary medicine surgical teaching program and local animal shelters decreases euthanasia of adoptable pets. At the University of California, Davis (UCD), shelter dogs are neutered by veterinary students and then returned to the shelter for adoption. The rates of adoption and euthanasia of the dogs neutered at UCD were contrasted with a comparison shelter group to determine the effect of pre-adoption neutering. The UCD-neutered dogs had a lower rate of euthanasia than the comparison shelter group at the shelters investigated. At Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation, 73% of the UCD group but only 36% of the comparison group were adopted. At Yolo County Animal Services, 71% of the UCD group and 45% of the comparison group were adopted. The sex of an animal did not significantly affect the rate of euthanasia. Dogs that were predominantly pit bull, rottweiler, or chow chow breeds had higher rates of euthanasia than other breeds, independent of neuter status. Also, juveniles (less than one year old) had lower rates of euthanasia than adults, independent of neuter status. UCD adult dogs had lower rates of euthanasia than comparison adults. Post-surgical UCD dogs spent a longer average time in the shelter before adoption (15 days at Sacramento; 16 days at Yolo) than the comparison dogs (11 and 12 days, respectively). UCD dogs also spent a longer average time in the shelter before euthanasia (18 and 25 days, respectively) than the comparison dogs (13 days at both shelters). Lower probabilities of euthanasia for behavioral or medical reasons were found for UCD dogs than for the comparison dogs. The probability of euthanasia for reasons of space limitations increased with time in shelter for both groups. In this study, pre-adoption neutering increased adoptions without increasing the probability of medical or behavioral euthanasia.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

The ethics of euthanasia: advocates' perspectives.

The Netherlands is currently the only country in the world in which euthanasia is legally permissible. More specifically, Dutch law (briefly explained) allows that a doctor terminates the life of a patient of hers on his voluntary, well-considered and sustained request, if he is suffering unbearably and hopelessly. The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the Dutch debate on the moral permissibility of euthanasia so as to clarify and strengthen the various views that can be advanced in support of euthanasia. On the one view, The Pure Autonomy View (TPAV), the justification of euthanasia rests solely on the principle of respect for autonomy. That is, the reason for performing and permitting euthanasia is the patient's voluntary, well-considered and sustained, in one word: autonomous, request for euthanasia. On the alternative view, The Joint View (TJV), the principle of respect for autonomy and the principle of beneficence morally justify euthanasia together. That is, euthanasia is ethical if and partly because, since the patient is suffering unbearably and hopelessly, euthanasia is in his interest. According to this paper, there is no easy argument for one of these views rather than the other. Instead, as yet both TPAV and TJV seem inherently problematic. TPAV is unable to give a doctor a reason for performing euthanasia that appeals to her in her capacity as a doctor, such as relief of suffering. And TJV begs the question--for example, if a state were to legalize euthanasia on grounds of TJV, it would force the view upon its citizens that it may be in a person's interest to die.

Beneficence↗
PubMed2001

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↗
PubMed2000

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↗