SEARCH · Search PubMed
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.
Passive euthanasia is invariably practised in palliative care. This article aims to address the legal, moral and ethical implications of not hydrating dying patients and presents the results of a questionnaire assessing doctors' attitudes.
The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
After having been acquainted with the historical development of euthanasia, the following steps for assitance in dying, called passive euthanasia are being discussed. a) Assistance during dying without speeding up death is the self-evident duty of a doctor. b) Assistance during death and speeding up the same as an unavoidable result of therapeutical treatment, more or less desired or more or less unavoidable. c) Assistance through letting the patient die by abandoning all therapeutical means, when these would only lead to a short extension of life time. No doctor is compelled to take measures to extend life if it is against the will of the patient. He is not even entitled to do so. A special problem is the abandoning of extended operative treatment, this borders on the so called active enthanasia. The dying patient always has the same right of treatment by a docter as well as nursing like all other suffering human beings. The decision to let a patient die should not result in leaving him by himself and to abandon all nursing as well. Such steps would include letting him lie in dirty linen, not sucking off the mucous secretion from the trachea, refusal to assist during mealtimes, non-assistance during cathetering, and the removal of the dying person to the bathroom, or any other remote orner of the hospital. No dying person should stay without help Loneliness especially is the greatest pain of a dying patient.
The recent increase in reporting of passive euthanasia of defective newborn infants has not been accompanied by extensive analysis of the legality of the practice or the appropriateness of current law. There appears to be criminal liability on several grounds for parents, physicians, nurses, and administrators. Such liability may include charges of homicide by omission, child neglect, and failure to report child neglect. Increasing public exposure of the practice increases the probability that such prosecutions may be brought. Individuals involved in such decisions should be aware of their possible legal liability. If existing legal policy is inappropriate, it sould be changed through open discussion and not subverted through private action. Two alternative policies are described: establishment of criteria for the class of infants who can be allowed to die or a better process of decision making. We conclude that a committment to process would be preferable.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: Medical decisions concerning the prolongation of life, the right to die, and euthanasia are among the most extensively discussed decisions within medicine and law today. The responses of 360 physicians, housestaff, and medical students to a questionnaire were analyzed to identify attitudes toward these issues. DESIGN: Case vignettes were utilized to simulate the clinical context within which to survey decisions regarding whether or not to allow and assist patients requesting to die. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The majority of respondents (76%) consider withholding and withdrawing life-support therapy consistent with passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is more acceptable to the majority of the respondents (77%) and all three groups (physicians, housestaff, and students) are similarly more disturbed by active euthanasia. Of all respondents, 51% would accede to the patient's wishes when lifesaving treatment is refused, but only 16% would do so when a patient requested assistance in dying. Despite the fact that a majority (68%) agree that there is a moral justification for assisting patients to die and feel "understanding" for a physician who assists a patient in dying, only 6% of those persons surveyed were willing to deliberately terminate the life of a patient by administering medication to cause respiratory arrest, and only 1.1% of those persons surveyed were willing to do so to cause cardiac arrest. In the case vignettes, the faculty placed their highest value on disease-based information as strongly determinative to their decisions, while students and housestaff preferred quality-of-life factors. Respondents uniformly found it easier to perform "passive" actions; they were more willing to perform "active" actions in case vignettes where patients had terminal illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Socially and legally created "shades of gray" have blurred the distinctions between withholding or withdrawing therapies and euthanasia and have left physicians without guidelines. Health ethics education should focus on case-based teaching and on reducing the uncertainty at the bedside.
We have tried to sound out Italian neurologists regarding their attitude to euthanasia, a very controversial issue today. We gave a short multiple-choice questionnaire to neurologists attending a national conference, asking their opinion on some issues related to euthanasia. 75 (25%) of the 300 doctors polled completed the questionnaire. Answers were often contradictory. A trend in favor of passive euthanasia among the respondents and a strong demand for guidelines are evident. Emotional rather than professional or rational factors seem to play a major role in the approach to this dilemma.
Cancer is a diseased state, but it is not incurable. Indications and methods of therapy have been standardized almost internationally. Early diagnosis leads to better rates of cure. Cancer presents as an individually characterized multiplicity of symptoms of the disease. Individualization is the real art of medicine. Truthful information, adjusted to the individual patient in each case, should be given at the right time. There should be no rush to make early statements of prognosis, especially statements of hopeless despair. No physician has the right to prolong the supravital and subhuman stage of dying. Absolute dominance of the physical time factor over the specifically human qualities and the patient's own individuality is not justified. The legal situation with regard to the gray area of passive euthanasia should be more clearly defined.
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.