Physicians’ views on the role of relatives in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide decision-making: a mixed-methods study among physicians in the Netherlands

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01031-1
Sophie C. Renckens, Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Agnes van der Heide, H. Roeline Pasman
{"title":"Physicians’ views on the role of relatives in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide decision-making: a mixed-methods study among physicians in the Netherlands","authors":"Sophie C. Renckens, Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Agnes van der Heide, H. Roeline Pasman","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01031-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Relatives have no formal position in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) according to Dutch legislation. However, research shows that physicians often involve relatives in EAS decision-making. It remains unclear why physicians do (not) want to involve relatives. Therefore, we examined how many physicians in the Netherlands involve relatives in EAS decision-making and explored reasons for (not) involving relatives and what involvement entails. In a mixed-methods study, 746 physicians (33% response rate) completed a questionnaire, and 20 were interviewed. The questionnaire included two statements on relatives’ involvement in EAS decision-making. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore characteristics associated with involving relatives. In subsequent interviews, we explored physicians’ views on involving relatives in EAS decision-making. Interviews were thematically analysed. The majority of physicians want to know relatives’ opinions about an EAS request (80%); a smaller group also takes these opinions into account in EAS decision-making (35%). Physicians who had ever received an explicit EAS request were more likely to want to know opinions and clinical specialists and elderly care physicians were more likely to take these opinions into account. In interviews, physicians mentioned several reasons for involving relatives: e.g. to give relatives space and help them in their acceptance, to tailor support, to be able to perform EAS in harmony, and to mediate in case of conflicting views. Furthermore, physicians explained that relatives’ opinions can influence the decision-making process but cannot be a decisive factor. If relatives oppose the EAS request, physicians find the process more difficult and try to mediate between patients and relatives by investigating relatives’ objections and providing appropriate information. Reasons for not taking relatives’ opinions into account include not wanting to undermine patient autonomy and protecting relatives from a potential burdensome decision. Although physicians know that relatives have no formal role, involving relatives in EAS decision-making is common practice in the Netherlands. Physicians consider this important as relatives need to continue with their lives and may need bereavement support. Additionally, physicians want to perform EAS in harmony with everyone involved. However, relatives’ opinions are not decisive.","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01031-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Relatives have no formal position in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) according to Dutch legislation. However, research shows that physicians often involve relatives in EAS decision-making. It remains unclear why physicians do (not) want to involve relatives. Therefore, we examined how many physicians in the Netherlands involve relatives in EAS decision-making and explored reasons for (not) involving relatives and what involvement entails. In a mixed-methods study, 746 physicians (33% response rate) completed a questionnaire, and 20 were interviewed. The questionnaire included two statements on relatives’ involvement in EAS decision-making. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore characteristics associated with involving relatives. In subsequent interviews, we explored physicians’ views on involving relatives in EAS decision-making. Interviews were thematically analysed. The majority of physicians want to know relatives’ opinions about an EAS request (80%); a smaller group also takes these opinions into account in EAS decision-making (35%). Physicians who had ever received an explicit EAS request were more likely to want to know opinions and clinical specialists and elderly care physicians were more likely to take these opinions into account. In interviews, physicians mentioned several reasons for involving relatives: e.g. to give relatives space and help them in their acceptance, to tailor support, to be able to perform EAS in harmony, and to mediate in case of conflicting views. Furthermore, physicians explained that relatives’ opinions can influence the decision-making process but cannot be a decisive factor. If relatives oppose the EAS request, physicians find the process more difficult and try to mediate between patients and relatives by investigating relatives’ objections and providing appropriate information. Reasons for not taking relatives’ opinions into account include not wanting to undermine patient autonomy and protecting relatives from a potential burdensome decision. Although physicians know that relatives have no formal role, involving relatives in EAS decision-making is common practice in the Netherlands. Physicians consider this important as relatives need to continue with their lives and may need bereavement support. Additionally, physicians want to perform EAS in harmony with everyone involved. However, relatives’ opinions are not decisive.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医生对亲属在安乐死和医生协助自杀决策中的作用的看法:一项针对荷兰医生的混合方法研究
根据荷兰法律,亲属在安乐死和医生协助自杀(EAS)实践中没有正式地位。然而,研究表明,医生通常会让亲属参与 EAS 决策。目前仍不清楚医生为何愿意(不愿意)让亲属参与。因此,我们研究了荷兰有多少医生让亲属参与 EAS 决策,并探讨了让亲属参与(不参与)的原因以及参与的意义。在一项混合方法研究中,746 名医生(回复率为 33%)填写了调查问卷,20 名医生接受了访谈。调查问卷包括两份关于亲属参与 EAS 决策的声明。我们使用了描述性统计和多变量逻辑回归分析来探讨亲属参与的相关特征。在随后的访谈中,我们探讨了医生对亲属参与 EAS 决策的看法。我们对访谈内容进行了专题分析。大多数医生希望了解亲属对急救服务请求的意见(80%);一小部分医生在急救服务决策中也会考虑这些意见(35%)。曾经收到过明确的急救服务请求的医生更有可能希望了解亲属的意见,而临床专家和老年护理医生则更有可能考虑这些意见。在访谈中,医生提到了让亲属参与的几个原因:例如,给亲属空间并帮助他们接受,提供量身定制的支持,能够和谐地执行简易护理服务,以及在意见相左时进行调解。此外,医生还解释说,亲属的意见可以影响决策过程,但不能成为决定性因素。如果亲属反对 EAS 的要求,医生就会觉得这个过程更加困难,并试图通过调查亲属的反对意见和提供适当的信息在患者和亲属之间进行调解。不考虑亲属意见的原因包括不想损害病人的自主权,以及保护亲属免受潜在的决定负担。虽然医生知道亲属没有正式的角色,但在荷兰,让亲属参与 EAS 决策是常见的做法。医生认为这一点很重要,因为亲属需要继续生活,并可能需要丧亲支持。此外,医生还希望在实施 EAS 时与所有相关人员和谐相处。然而,亲属的意见并不是决定性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
A case study of Muslims' perspectives of expanded terminal sedation:addressing the elephant in the room. Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania. Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies. Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic. "I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics." Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1