Ethical perspectives regarding Euthanasia, including in the context of adult psychiatry: a qualitative interview study among healthcare workers in Belgium.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01063-7
Monica Verhofstadt, Loïc Moureau, Koen Pardon, Axel Liégeois
{"title":"Ethical perspectives regarding Euthanasia, including in the context of adult psychiatry: a qualitative interview study among healthcare workers in Belgium.","authors":"Monica Verhofstadt, Loïc Moureau, Koen Pardon, Axel Liégeois","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01063-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Previous research has explored euthanasia's ethical dimensions, primarily focusing on general practice and, to a lesser extent, psychiatry, mainly from the viewpoints of physicians and nurses. However, a gap exists in understanding the comprehensive value-based perspectives of other professionals involved in both somatic and psychiatric euthanasia. This paper aims to analyze the interplay among legal, medical, and ethical factors to clarify how foundational values shape the ethical discourse surrounding euthanasia in both somatic and psychiatric contexts. It seeks to explore these dynamics among all healthcare professionals and volunteers in Belgium.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 Dutch-speaking healthcare workers who had encountered patients requesting euthanasia for psychiatric conditions, in Belgium, from August 2019 to August 2020. Qualitative thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Participants identified three pivotal values and virtues: religious values, professional values, and fundamental medical values encompassing autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, linked to compassion, quality care, and justice. These values interwove across four tiers: the patient, the patient's inner circle, the medical realm, and society at large. Irrespective of their euthanasia stance, participants generally displayed a blend of ethical values across these tiers. Their euthanasia perspective was primarily shaped by value interpretation, significance allocation to key components, and tier weighting. Explicit mention of varying ethical values, potentially indicating distinct stances in favor of or against euthanasia, was infrequent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study underscores ethical discourse's central role in navigating euthanasia's intricate landscape. Fostering inclusive dialogue, bridging diverse values, supports informed decision-making, nurturing justice, and empathy. Tailored end-of-life healthcare in psychiatry is essential, acknowledging all involved actors' needs. The study calls for interdisciplinary research to comprehensively grasp euthanasia's multifaceted dimensions, and guiding policy evolution. While contextualized in Belgium, the implications extend to the broader euthanasia discourse, suggesting avenues for further inquiry and cross-cultural exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11107029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01063-7","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

Introduction: Previous research has explored euthanasia's ethical dimensions, primarily focusing on general practice and, to a lesser extent, psychiatry, mainly from the viewpoints of physicians and nurses. However, a gap exists in understanding the comprehensive value-based perspectives of other professionals involved in both somatic and psychiatric euthanasia. This paper aims to analyze the interplay among legal, medical, and ethical factors to clarify how foundational values shape the ethical discourse surrounding euthanasia in both somatic and psychiatric contexts. It seeks to explore these dynamics among all healthcare professionals and volunteers in Belgium.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 Dutch-speaking healthcare workers who had encountered patients requesting euthanasia for psychiatric conditions, in Belgium, from August 2019 to August 2020. Qualitative thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts.

Findings: Participants identified three pivotal values and virtues: religious values, professional values, and fundamental medical values encompassing autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, linked to compassion, quality care, and justice. These values interwove across four tiers: the patient, the patient's inner circle, the medical realm, and society at large. Irrespective of their euthanasia stance, participants generally displayed a blend of ethical values across these tiers. Their euthanasia perspective was primarily shaped by value interpretation, significance allocation to key components, and tier weighting. Explicit mention of varying ethical values, potentially indicating distinct stances in favor of or against euthanasia, was infrequent.

Conclusion: The study underscores ethical discourse's central role in navigating euthanasia's intricate landscape. Fostering inclusive dialogue, bridging diverse values, supports informed decision-making, nurturing justice, and empathy. Tailored end-of-life healthcare in psychiatry is essential, acknowledging all involved actors' needs. The study calls for interdisciplinary research to comprehensively grasp euthanasia's multifaceted dimensions, and guiding policy evolution. While contextualized in Belgium, the implications extend to the broader euthanasia discourse, suggesting avenues for further inquiry and cross-cultural exploration.

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
关于安乐死的伦理观点,包括在成人精神病学中的伦理观点:对比利时医护人员的定性访谈研究。
导言:以往的研究主要从医生和护士的角度探讨了安乐死的伦理问题,主要集中在全科医学领域,其次是精神病学领域。然而,在了解参与躯体安乐死和精神安乐死的其他专业人员的综合价值观点方面还存在差距。本文旨在分析法律、医学和伦理因素之间的相互作用,以阐明在躯体安乐死和精神安乐死的背景下,基础价值观是如何塑造围绕安乐死的伦理讨论的。本研究试图探讨比利时所有医护人员和志愿者之间的这些动态关系:方法:2019 年 8 月至 2020 年 8 月,在比利时对 30 名曾遇到过因精神疾病而请求安乐死的患者的荷兰语医护人员进行了半结构化访谈。对访谈记录进行了定性主题分析:参与者确定了三种关键价值观和美德:宗教价值观、专业价值观和基本医疗价值观,包括自主性、受益性和非恶意性,并与同情心、优质护理和正义相关联。这些价值观在四个层面相互交织:病人、病人的核心圈子、医疗领域和整个社会。无论其安乐死立场如何,参与者一般都会在这些层面上表现出伦理价值观的融合。他们的安乐死观点主要是由价值诠释、关键要素的重要性分配和层级权重决定的。很少有人明确提及不同的伦理价值观,这可能表明了支持或反对安乐死的不同立场:本研究强调了伦理讨论在驾驭安乐死复杂局面中的核心作用。促进包容性对话,在不同价值观之间架起桥梁,有助于做出明智的决策,培养正义感和同理心。精神病学中量身定制的临终关怀至关重要,要承认所有参与者的需求。本研究呼吁开展跨学科研究,以全面把握安乐死的多面性,并指导政策的演变。虽然研究以比利时为背景,但其意义却延伸到了更广泛的安乐死讨论中,为进一步的调查和跨文化探索提供了途径。
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
Public perceptions of the Hippocratic Oath in the U.K. 2023. Ethical challenges in organ transplantation for Syrian refugees in Türkiye. What ethical conflicts do internists in Spain, México and Argentina encounter? An international cross-sectional observational study based on a self-administrated survey. Medical futility at the end of life: the first qualitative study of ethical decision-making methods among Turkish doctors. Financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guideline for headache disorders in Japan.
×
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