How best to regulate voluntary assisted dying: a qualitative study of perceptions of Australian doctors and regulators.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Ben P White, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott
{"title":"How best to regulate voluntary assisted dying: a qualitative study of perceptions of Australian doctors and regulators.","authors":"Ben P White, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwae045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is widely accepted that voluntary assisted dying (VAD) should be regulated but little is known about the most effective way to regulate doctors in this setting. This article reports on empirical research conducted in two Australian states where VAD is lawful (Victoria and Western Australia). Interviews were conducted with 92 participants: one group comprised doctors providing VAD and the other group was regulators in this field. Participants were asked about how best to regulate doctors providing this service. Strikingly, both regulator and doctor participant groups were consistent with each other in their views on what constituted effective regulation. The nature of VAD was perceived by participants to require special regulation, although some felt this was overdone in these states. Reported features of effective regulation included regulators taking an educative approach, regulation being perceived as acceptable by doctors, and it being responsive and nimble to provide the guidance that doctors need. Participants also considered a range of regulatory tools were required to regulate VAD effectively, and some identified a need for these tools to be employed together in a holistic way. This article concludes with a set of principles for effective regulation of VAD, discerned from the views of participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11793166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely accepted that voluntary assisted dying (VAD) should be regulated but little is known about the most effective way to regulate doctors in this setting. This article reports on empirical research conducted in two Australian states where VAD is lawful (Victoria and Western Australia). Interviews were conducted with 92 participants: one group comprised doctors providing VAD and the other group was regulators in this field. Participants were asked about how best to regulate doctors providing this service. Strikingly, both regulator and doctor participant groups were consistent with each other in their views on what constituted effective regulation. The nature of VAD was perceived by participants to require special regulation, although some felt this was overdone in these states. Reported features of effective regulation included regulators taking an educative approach, regulation being perceived as acceptable by doctors, and it being responsive and nimble to provide the guidance that doctors need. Participants also considered a range of regulatory tools were required to regulate VAD effectively, and some identified a need for these tools to be employed together in a holistic way. This article concludes with a set of principles for effective regulation of VAD, discerned from the views of participants.

自愿协助死亡(VAD)应受到监管这一点已被广泛接受,但人们对在这种情况下监管医生的最有效方法却知之甚少。本文报告了在澳大利亚两个自愿协助死亡合法的州(维多利亚州和西澳大利亚州)进行的实证研究。我们对 92 名参与者进行了访谈,其中一组是提供 VAD 的医生,另一组是这一领域的监管者。参与者被问及如何最好地监管提供这种服务的医生。令人吃惊的是,监管者和医生这两组参与者对什么是有效监管的看法是一致的。与会者认为,自愿性医疗援助的性质要求进行特殊监管,尽管有些人认为在这些州监管过度。据报告,有效监管的特点包括监管者采取教育方法,监管被医生认为是可接受的,以及监管反应灵敏,能够提供医生所需的指导。与会者还认为,要有效监管自愿药物滥用,需要一系列监管工具,其中一些人认为有必要以综合方式同时使用这些工具。本文最后根据与会者的意见,提出了一套有效监管自愿性评估的原则。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信