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.     

The effect of sotalol hydrochloride therapy on atrial signal-averaged ECG in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: There has been a continuing public debate about assisted suicide and the proper role, if any, of physicians in this practice. Legislative bans and various forms of legalization have been proposed. METHODS: We mailed questionnaires to three stratified random samples of Michigan physicians in specialties likely to involve the care of terminally ill patients: 500 in the spring of 1994, 500 in the summer of 1994, and 600 in the spring of 1995. Similar questionnaires were mailed to stratified random samples of Michigan adults: 449 in the spring of 1994 and 899 in the summer of 1994. Several different questionnaire forms were used, all of which included questions about whether physician-assisted suicide should be banned in Michigan or legalized under certain conditions. RESULTS: Usable questionnaires were returned by 1119 of 1518 physicians eligible for the study (74 percent), and 998 of 1307 eligible adults in the sample of the general public (76 percent). Asked to choose between legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an explicit ban, 56 percent of physicians and 66 percent of the public support legalization, 37 percent of physicians and 26 percent of the public preferred a ban, and 8 percent of each group were uncertain. When the physicians were given a wider range of choices, 40 percent preferred legalization, 37 percent preferred "no law" (i.e., no government regulation), 17 percent favored prohibition, and 5 percent were uncertain. If physician-assisted suicide were legal, 35 percent of physicians said they might participate if requested--22 percent would participate in either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, and 13 percent would participate only in assisted suicide. Support for physician-assisted suicide was lowest among the strongly religious. CONCLUSIONS: Most Michigan physicians prefer either the legalization of physician-assisted suicide or no law at all; fewer than one fifth prefer a complete ban on the practice. Given a choice between legalization and a ban, two thirds of the Michigan public prefer legalization and one quarter prefer a ban.     

End-of-life issues: a survey of English-speaking Canadian nurses in AIDS care

This anonymous postal survey explored attitudes and experiences concerning end-of-life decisions. Respondents were English-speaking members of the Canadian Association for Nurses in AIDS Care (CANAC) and other nurses identified as working primarily in HIV/AIDS settings. Seventy-three percent believed that the law should be changed to allow physicians to practice voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). Fifty-three percent indicated that nurses should be allowed to practice VE and AS. Although VE and AS are illegal, fewer than one in five nurses would report a colleague whom they knew to be involved in such acts. More than one in five nurses have received requests from patients to hasten their deaths by VE. Nearly 98% believe that the nursing profession should be involved in policy development concerning VE and AS, and nearly 78% believe that nurses should be involved in the decision-making process with patients if such acts were legal. Given that ethical codes for Canadian nurses promote client self-determination and that nurses are the largest group of care providers for the terminally ill, the profession must promote discussion and research if it is to take a leadership role with respect to end-of-life issues.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 11. Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Euthanasia and assisted suicide involve taking deliberate action to end or assist in ending the life of another person on compassionate grounds. There is considerable disagreement about the acceptability of these acts and about whether they are ethically distinct from decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are punishable offences under Canadian criminal law, despite increasing public pressure for a more permissive policy. Some Canadian physicians would be willing to practise euthanasia and assisted suicide if these acts were legal. In practice, physicians must differentiate between respecting competent decisions to forgo treatment, providing appropriate palliative care, and acceeding to a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Physicians who believe that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legally accepted in Canada should pursue their convictions only through legal and democratic means.     

Desire for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in palliative cancer care.

Objective: To investigate the attitudes of terminally ill individuals toward the legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and to identify those who would personally desire such a death. Design: In the Canadian National Palliative Care Survey, semistructured interviews were administered to 379 patients who were receiving palliative care for cancer. Patients who expressed a desire for physician-hastened death were followed prospectively. Main Outcome Measures: Attitudes toward the legalization of euthanasia or PAS were determined, as was the personal interest in receiving a hastened death. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also recorded, including a 22-item structured interview of symptoms and concerns. Results: There were 238 participants (62.8%) who believed that euthanasia and/or PAS should be legalized, and 151 (39.8%) who would consider making a future request for a physician-hastened death. However, only 22 (5.8%) reported that, if legally permissible, they would initiate such a request right away, in their current situations. This desire for hastened death was associated with lower religiosity (p = .010), reduced functional status (p = .024), a diagnosis of major depression (p     

Health professionals, disability, and assisted suicide: An examination of relevant empirical evidence and reply to Batavia (2000).

Prominent disability rights groups have adopted positions opposing the legalization of assisted suicide. That physicians and other health professionals would assist in suicides of persons with incurable conditions while offering suicide prevention to "healthy" individuals is, they maintain, evidence of social discrimination and an unwarranted devaluation of the quality of life of people with disabilities. This article examined empirical literature relevant to the question: Is there evidence that disability affects life in a manner that justifies an exception to the general practice of preventing rather than endorsing suicide? Research findings are discussed in terms of their bearing on the disability rights opposition to physician-assisted suicide and the need for research addressing the dynamics of death requests of persons with disabilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sex-selection of human spermatozoa: evolution of current techniques and applications

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.     

Monday and non-Monday concentrations of lifestyle-related blood components in the Oslo Diet and Exercise Study

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.     

Deciding life and death in the courtroom. From Quinlan to Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Vacco--a brief history and analysis of constitutional protection of the 'right to die'

This article analyzes judicial determinations on the "right to die" from Quinlan to Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Vacco. The body of law known as right-to-die cases extends ordinary treatment refusal doctrine to end-of-life decisions. The courts, having affirmed a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, held that certain categorical distinctions that had been drawn lacked a rational basis. No rational distinction could be made between competent vs incompetent patients, withholding vs withdrawing treatment, and ordinary vs extraordinary treatment. The courts, however, had persistently affirmed one categorical distinction: between withdrawing life-sustaining treament on the one hand and active euthanasia or physician-assisted dying on the other. In Washington v Glucksberg and Vacco v Quill, the Supreme Court unanimously held that physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution. Notably, five members of the Court wrote or joined in concurring opinions that took a more liberal view. The Court powerfully approved aggressive palliation of pain. The Supreme Court, hinting that it would find state legalization of physician-assisted suicide constitutional, invited the nation to pursue an earnest debate on physician assistance in the dying process.     

Active euthanasia and assisted suicide: a perspective from an American abortion and Dutch euthanasia scenario

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To discuss the critical issues involved in the legalization of active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. DATA SOURCES: Nursing, medical, legal, and ethics literature; newspaper articles; book chapters. DATA SYNTHESIS: The major terms employed in the discussion of active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are defined. The implications of the recent Supreme Court decision on these practices are outlined. The Dutch euthanasia and the American abortion scenarios are used as models for the interpretation of the effects of future legislation on such practices. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology nurses need to be cognizant of the crucial issues involved in the practices of active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and determine their philosophical stance regarding the practices. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: If active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide practices are legalized, oncology nurses will have to make decisions about their desired degree of involvement in acts that will end their patients' lives.     

The role of the nurse in active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

The researchers wanted to obtain insight into the cooperation between physicians and nurses with regard to active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS). In study I a stratified random sample of 203 clinical specialists, 152 general practitioners (GPs) and 50 nursing home physicians (NHPs) participated. In study II a random sample of 521 GPs was drawn from the province of North Holland and a random sample of 521 GPs was drawn from the rest of the Netherlands. For study III all NHPs were approached. Data were collected by means of an interview in study I. In studies II and III an anonymous, postal questionnaire was used. Approximately half of the GPs did not consult with nurses about a patient's request for EAS, the intention to administer EAS, and the actual administration. In 5% of cases, the NHPs and the specialists did not consult with nurses concerning these aspects. The GPs and NHPs indicated in 4% and 3% of the cases, respectively, that nurses administered the lethal drug(s) to the patients; the corresponding figure for the specialists was 21%. Almost all GPs and NHPs and about three-quarters of the specialists thought that nurses should never be allowed to administer EAS.     

A call for civility in the disability/assisted suicide debate.

The debate over legalization of physician-assisted suicide is inherently controversial, particularly where disability issues and physician-assisted suicide intersect. This is the area addressed by C. J. Gill (see record 2001-17060-021) and A. I. Batavia (see record 2001-17060-022) in this journal's recent special issue on hastened death. In replying to Batavia's commentary, Gill accused Batavia of generally misrepresenting Gill's positions and distorting facts. Here Batavia replies to the alleged errors that Gill identified. Batavia defends his assumption that, without state interference in the private relationship between individuals and their physicians, such individuals would be able to end their suffering with the assistance of their physicians. There was very little data to cite on the level of support of disabled people for a right to assisted suicide. Individuals who lack adequate opportunity to adapt to their disabilities cannot exercise real autonomy in choosing to end their lives. Batavia contends that most people with disabilities support the right to remove life-sustaining equipment, mirroring a strong consensus in American law and ethics that individuals should be allowed to refuse care they do not want. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Physician-assisted suicide in psychiatry: developments in The Netherlands

Physician-assisted suicide can now be officially and legally carried out for psychiatric patients in The Netherlands who request it, provided that criteria are met. The authors describe two recent cases of psychiatric patients whose suicides were assisted by their psychiatrist. They critically examine the guidelines for physician-assisted suicide in psychiatry. The criteria address the decision of the patient to be assisted with suicide, which must be voluntary and well considered, and the patient's desire to die, which must endure over time. The patient's suffering must be unacceptable, and the disorder incurable. The authors conclude that important aspects of psychiatric practice are not addressed in the guidelines, which were originally developed for use in somatic medicine. The assessment of treatment prognosis in psychiatry is not accurate enough to allow a final decision about incurability. Boundaries of the psychiatric therapeutic relationship are violated in physician-assisted suicide. The therapist's inability to objectively assess the patient's wish to die is overlooked. Because the general public will continue to ask for clarity on the issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the authors believe that an open discussion of both ethical and professional issues is the best option.     

How to deal with requests for assisted suicide: Some experiences and practical guidelines from the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, physician-assisted suicide may be justifiable for patients with physical illness as well as for patients with unbearable mental suffering. Explicit requests for physician-assisted suicide are frequently made, but in psychiatric practice they are infrequently granted. In this contribution, some information on the Dutch practices related to assisted death is presented, with emphasis on assisted suicide in patients with unbearable mental suffering. The aim of this contribution is to demonstrate that the Dutch law and jurisprudence permit clinicians to deal effectively with requests for assisted suicide. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain

Debates about the ethics of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide date from ancient Greece and Rome. After the development of ether, physicians began advocating the use of anesthetics to relieve the pains of death. In 1870, Samuel Williams first proposed using anesthetics and morphine to intentionally end a patient's life. Over the next 35 years, debates about the ethics of euthanasia raged in the United States and Britain, culminating in 1906 in an Ohio bill to legalize euthanasia, a bill that was ultimately defeated. The arguments propounded for and against euthanasia in the 19th century are identical to contemporary arguments. Such similarities suggest four conclusions: Public interest in euthanasia 1) is not linked with advances in biomedical technology; 2) it flourishes in times of economic recession, in which individualism and social Darwinism are invoked to justify public policy; 3) it arises when physician authority over medical decision making is challenged; and 4) it occurs when terminating life-sustaining medical interventions become standard medical practice and interest develops in extending such practices to include euthanasia.     

Physician-assisted suicide and the Supreme Court: the Washington and Vacco verdicts

In June 1997, the Supreme Court decided that statutes proscribing physicians from providing lethal medication for use by competent, terminally ill patients do not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The Court returned the question of physician-assisted suicide to the states, but did not foreclose future review of state laws that may be too restrictive of care at the end of life. The conceptual distinctions between assisted suicide, refusal of life-sustaining treatment, and administration of pain medication to terminally ill patients were endorsed as important guideposts for future analyses.