Medical students' and residents' views on euthanasia.
Assisted dying
Euthanasia
Medical end-of-life decisions
Medical students
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Dec 2023
08 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
26
03
2023
accepted:
20
11
2023
medline:
9
12
2023
pubmed:
9
12
2023
entrez:
9
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Doctors are increasingly faced with end-of-life decisions. Little is known about how medical students approach euthanasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate, among medical students and residents, the view on euthanasia and its variants; correlate such a view with empathy and religiosity/spiritualism; and with the stages of medical training in Brazil. This is an exploratory cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire to be filled out on a voluntary basis among medical students and residents, consisting of: socio-demographic data, an empathy questionnaire and questions with elaborate clinical cases that typify situations of the variants of euthanasia. From 1550 invitations, 273 volunteer participants responded (17.6%). The percentages of strong agreement/agreement on the concepts were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. Religious belief and degree of empathy did not significantly influence the opinion about the concepts. Strong agreement/agreement were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. The external validation of our findings relies on the distinct legal, cultural, and religious frameworks found across various countries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Doctors are increasingly faced with end-of-life decisions. Little is known about how medical students approach euthanasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate, among medical students and residents, the view on euthanasia and its variants; correlate such a view with empathy and religiosity/spiritualism; and with the stages of medical training in Brazil.
METHODS
METHODS
This is an exploratory cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire to be filled out on a voluntary basis among medical students and residents, consisting of: socio-demographic data, an empathy questionnaire and questions with elaborate clinical cases that typify situations of the variants of euthanasia.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 1550 invitations, 273 volunteer participants responded (17.6%). The percentages of strong agreement/agreement on the concepts were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. Religious belief and degree of empathy did not significantly influence the opinion about the concepts. Strong agreement/agreement were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. The external validation of our findings relies on the distinct legal, cultural, and religious frameworks found across various countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38066498
doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00986-x
pii: 10.1186/s12910-023-00986-x
pmc: PMC10704653
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med Educ. 2012 Aug 09;12:73
pubmed: 22873730
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Jul 28;157(14):1603-9
pubmed: 9236563
Can Fam Physician. 2018 Sep;64(9):e400-e406
pubmed: 30209114
Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7(3):333-9
pubmed: 15679025
Psychiatriki. 2009 Oct;20(4):305-11
pubmed: 22218231
Palliat Support Care. 2006 Sep;4(3):251-5
pubmed: 17066966
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2020 Dec 12;13:22
pubmed: 33552455
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2000 Aug 20;120(19):2283-8
pubmed: 10997089
Thorac Surg Clin. 2005 Nov;15(4):469-80
pubmed: 16276811
P R Health Sci J. 2006 Dec;25(4):325-9
pubmed: 17550099
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Aug;22(2):657-67
pubmed: 11495712
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Oct;23(10):1608-14
pubmed: 18633680
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jul;29(7):1048-54
pubmed: 24647724
Future Healthc J. 2018 Feb;5(1):25-29
pubmed: 31098527
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Feb 15;33(1):Doc11
pubmed: 26958648
Palliat Support Care. 2017 Oct;15(5):609-622
pubmed: 28901283
Crit Care Med. 1992 May;20(5):683-90
pubmed: 1572195
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 24;160(14):2226-7
pubmed: 10904481
Support Care Cancer. 2008 Jun;16(6):539-45
pubmed: 18335257
J Cancer Educ. 2013 Jun;28(2):384-91
pubmed: 23055130
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Oct 27;18(1):58
pubmed: 29078769
Arch Med Res. 2013 Aug;44(6):475-8
pubmed: 23973196
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Feb 23;21(1):125
pubmed: 33622329
Fam Med. 2000 Apr;32(4):261-6
pubmed: 10782373