Conscientious Objection and Other Motivations for Refusal to Treat in Hastened Death: A Systematic Review.

assisted suicide conscientious objection euthanasia hastened death refusal to treat systematic review

Journal

Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 28 06 2023
revised: 19 07 2023
accepted: 24 07 2023
medline: 12 8 2023
pubmed: 12 8 2023
entrez: 12 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Conscientious objection (CO) in the context of health care arises when a health care professional (HCP) refuses to participate in a certain procedure because it is not compatible with their ethical or moral principles. Refusal to treat in health care includes, in addition to CO, other factors that may lead the HCP not to want to participate in a certain procedure. Therefore, we can say that CO is a form of refusal of treatment based on conscience. Hastened death has become an increasingly reality around the world, being a procedure in which not all HCPs are willing to participate. There are several factors that can condition the HCPs' refusal to treat in this scenario. With the aim of identifying these factors, we performed a systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines. On 1 October 2022, we searched for relevant articles on Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. From an initial search of 693 articles, 12 were included in the final analysis. Several motivations that condition refusal to treat were identified, including legal, technical, social, and CO. Three main motivations for CO were also identified, namely religious, moral/secular, and emotional/psychological motivations. We must adopt an understanding approach respecting the position of each HCP, avoiding judgmental and discriminatory positions, although we must ensure also that patients have access to care. The identification of these motivations may permit solutions that, while protecting the HCPS' position, may also mitigate potential problems concerning patients' access to this type of procedure.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Conscientious objection (CO) in the context of health care arises when a health care professional (HCP) refuses to participate in a certain procedure because it is not compatible with their ethical or moral principles. Refusal to treat in health care includes, in addition to CO, other factors that may lead the HCP not to want to participate in a certain procedure. Therefore, we can say that CO is a form of refusal of treatment based on conscience. Hastened death has become an increasingly reality around the world, being a procedure in which not all HCPs are willing to participate. There are several factors that can condition the HCPs' refusal to treat in this scenario.
METHODS METHODS
With the aim of identifying these factors, we performed a systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines. On 1 October 2022, we searched for relevant articles on Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus databases.
RESULTS RESULTS
From an initial search of 693 articles, 12 were included in the final analysis. Several motivations that condition refusal to treat were identified, including legal, technical, social, and CO. Three main motivations for CO were also identified, namely religious, moral/secular, and emotional/psychological motivations.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We must adopt an understanding approach respecting the position of each HCP, avoiding judgmental and discriminatory positions, although we must ensure also that patients have access to care. The identification of these motivations may permit solutions that, while protecting the HCPS' position, may also mitigate potential problems concerning patients' access to this type of procedure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37570368
pii: healthcare11152127
doi: 10.3390/healthcare11152127
pmc: PMC10418655
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Centre for Health Technology and Services Research
ID : UIDB/4255/2020

Références

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013 Dec;123 Suppl 3:S41-56
pubmed: 24332234
J Med Ethics. 2011 Dec;37(12):727-34
pubmed: 21947807
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000 Oct;71(1):71-7
pubmed: 11044548
Qual Health Res. 2021 Aug;31(10):1786-1800
pubmed: 33938306
BMJ. 2021 Sep 10;374:n2200
pubmed: 34507973
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Jun 30;21(1):50
pubmed: 32605569
J R Soc Med. 2018 Nov;111(11):407-413
pubmed: 30427291
Bioethics. 2019 Jun;33(5):625-632
pubmed: 30865301
New Bioeth. 2016 Apr;22(1):33-44
pubmed: 28219284
Nurs Ethics. 2022 Nov-Dec;29(7-8):1721-1738
pubmed: 35786045
Int J Psychol. 2021 Feb;56(1):64-74
pubmed: 32441328
J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Jul;18(2):277-289
pubmed: 33638126
Nurs Inq. 2020 Jan;27(1):e12308
pubmed: 31273903
J Relig Health. 2016 Apr;55(2):384-93
pubmed: 26923838
Med Care. 2013 Oct;51(10):938-44
pubmed: 23929402
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 30;9(10):e028868
pubmed: 31666261
J Med Ethics. 2018 May;44(5):292-296
pubmed: 27495234
Health Policy. 2021 Nov;125(11):1455-1474
pubmed: 34588128
J Health Psychol. 2017 Jan;22(1):51-67
pubmed: 26220460
Bioethics. 2017 Mar;31(3):162-170
pubmed: 27716989
Palliat Med. 2019 Oct;33(9):1212-1220
pubmed: 31280666
Acta Med Port. 2019 Jun 28;32(6):474
pubmed: 31292034
J Clin Nurs. 2020 Oct;29(19-20):3870-3881
pubmed: 32700402
J Bioeth Inq. 2018 Sep;15(3):313-317
pubmed: 29790018
Bioethics. 2014 Jan;28(1):1-7
pubmed: 24117529
J Med Ethics. 1991 Sep;17(3):131-5
pubmed: 1941953
Qual Health Res. 2021 Oct;31(12):2274-2289
pubmed: 34238079
Bioethics. 2014 Jan;28(1):16-23
pubmed: 24117510
Nurs Forum. 2018 Oct;53(4):511-520
pubmed: 29972596
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Feb;27(3-4):e488-e494
pubmed: 28771909
Health Policy. 2022 Jul;126(7):643-651
pubmed: 35606215
Ethics Behav. 2000;10(4):337-61
pubmed: 11785548
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2022 Oct;39(10):1203-1209
pubmed: 35045758
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Jun 3;21(1):46
pubmed: 32493374
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Sep 18;20(1):65
pubmed: 31533715
Palliat Support Care. 2021 Dec;19(6):744-758
pubmed: 33781368
HEC Forum. 2021 Sep;33(3):269-289
pubmed: 32221817
Bioethics. 2000 Jul;14(3):205-27
pubmed: 11658133
Ann Palliat Med. 2021 Mar;10(3):3540-3553
pubmed: 32921084
J Med Ethics. 2014 Sep;40(9):609-12
pubmed: 23946469
Br Med Bull. 2018 Jun 1;126(1):47-56
pubmed: 29608648
J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Dec;15(6):1054-60
pubmed: 20367705
Nurs Ethics. 2021 Aug;28(5):766-775
pubmed: 33427031
Gerontologist. 2014 Oct;54(5):808-17
pubmed: 24000266
Health Care Anal. 2013 Sep;21(3):237-47
pubmed: 23539432
J Med Ethics. 2017 Apr;43(4):234-240
pubmed: 27106748
Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906
pubmed: 33789826
New Bioeth. 2019 Sep;25(3):248-261
pubmed: 31498054
Nurs Ethics. 2012 Nov;19(6):738-49
pubmed: 22736753
Dev World Bioeth. 2002 Dec;2(2):131-43
pubmed: 12870481
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Oct 19;19(1):82
pubmed: 30340579
BMC Palliat Care. 2014 Dec 23;13(1):62
pubmed: 25587240
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Dec;9(4):370-372
pubmed: 31676664
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Dec;5(Suppl 4):S43
pubmed: 29302599

Auteurs

Madalena Martins-Vale (M)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.

Helena P Pereira (HP)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.
CINTESIS@RISE, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.

Sílvia Marina (S)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.
CINTESIS@RISE, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.

Miguel Ricou (M)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.
CINTESIS@RISE, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.

Classifications MeSH