PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8019219

Attitudes among NHS doctors to requests for euthanasia.

B J Ward·P A Tate
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore NHS doctors' attitudes to competent patients' requests for euthanasia and to estimate the proportion of doctors who have taken active steps to hasten a patient's death. DESIGN: Anonymous postal questionnaire, with no possibility of follow up. The survey was conducted from December 1992 to March 1993. SUBJECTS: All (221) general practitioners and 203 hospital consultants in one area of England. RESULTS: 273 doctors responded to a question on whether a patient had ever asked them to hasten death. Of these, 163 had been asked to; 124 of these had been asked to take active steps to hasten death; 38 of 119 (32%) of these had complied with such a request (95% confidence interval 23% to 40%). This proportion represented 12% of all those who returned a completed questionnaire and 9% of all those who had been sent a questionnaire (95% confidence interval 6.3% to 11.7%). A larger proportion of the respondents (142/307 (46%)), however, would consider taking active steps to bring about the death of a patient if it was legal to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Many doctors face difficult decisions about euthanasia. For the benefit of both patients and doctors euthanasia should be discussed more openly.

Explore related subjects

Advance DirectivesAttitude of Health PersonnelConsultantsEnglandEuthanasiaEuthanasia, ActiveEuthanasia, Active, VoluntaryEuthanasia, PassiveHumansInternationalityMedical Staff, HospitalPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, FamilySurveys and QuestionnairesWithholding TreatmentDeath and EuthanasiaEmpirical ApproachNational Health ServiceJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B J Ward, P A Tate. 1994-05-21. Attitudes among NHS doctors to requests for euthanasia.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6940.1332

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2006

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗