Narrative review of the impact on physicians of administering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and its association with moral distress.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Priyanka Pinto, Gerald Blaise Fogarty, David Kissane
{"title":"Narrative review of the impact on physicians of administering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and its association with moral distress.","authors":"Priyanka Pinto, Gerald Blaise Fogarty, David Kissane","doi":"10.1017/S1478951525000240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Moral distress affects a significant proportion of clinicians who have received requests and participated in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) globally. It has been reported that personal and professional support needs are often unaddressed, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to review studies from 2017 to 2023 for the perceived risks, harms, and benefits to doctors of administering E/PAS and the ethical implications for the profession of medicine resulting from this practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search explored original research papers published in peer-reviewed English language literature between June 2017 and December 2023 to extend prior reviews. This included both studies reporting quantitative and qualitative data, with a specific focus on the impact on, or response from, physicians to their participation in E/PAS. The quantitative review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The qualitative review used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme to assess whether studies were valid, reliable, and trustworthy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies (quantitative <i>n</i> = 5, qualitative <i>n</i> = 22, mixed methods <i>n</i> = 3) were identified and fulfilled acceptable research assessment criteria. The following 5 themes arose from the synthesis of qualitative studies: (1) experience of the request prior to administration; (2) the doctor's role and agency in the death of a patient; (3) moral distress post-administration; (4) workload and burnout; and (5) professional guidance and support. Both quantitative and qualitative studies showed a significant proportion of clinicians (45.8-80%) have been adversely affected by their involvement in E/PAS, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.</p><p><strong>Significance of results: </strong>Participation in E/PAS can reward some and cause moral distress in others. For many clinicians, this can include significant adverse personal and professional consequences, thereby impacting the medical profession as a whole.</p>","PeriodicalId":47898,"journal":{"name":"Palliative & Supportive Care","volume":"23 ","pages":"e115"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative & Supportive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951525000240","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Moral distress affects a significant proportion of clinicians who have received requests and participated in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) globally. It has been reported that personal and professional support needs are often unaddressed, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.

Objectives: This study aimed to review studies from 2017 to 2023 for the perceived risks, harms, and benefits to doctors of administering E/PAS and the ethical implications for the profession of medicine resulting from this practice.

Methods: The search explored original research papers published in peer-reviewed English language literature between June 2017 and December 2023 to extend prior reviews. This included both studies reporting quantitative and qualitative data, with a specific focus on the impact on, or response from, physicians to their participation in E/PAS. The quantitative review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The qualitative review used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme to assess whether studies were valid, reliable, and trustworthy.

Results: Thirty studies (quantitative n = 5, qualitative n = 22, mixed methods n = 3) were identified and fulfilled acceptable research assessment criteria. The following 5 themes arose from the synthesis of qualitative studies: (1) experience of the request prior to administration; (2) the doctor's role and agency in the death of a patient; (3) moral distress post-administration; (4) workload and burnout; and (5) professional guidance and support. Both quantitative and qualitative studies showed a significant proportion of clinicians (45.8-80%) have been adversely affected by their involvement in E/PAS, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.

Significance of results: Participation in E/PAS can reward some and cause moral distress in others. For many clinicians, this can include significant adverse personal and professional consequences, thereby impacting the medical profession as a whole.

对实施安乐死或医生协助自杀对医生的影响及其与道德困境的关系的叙述性回顾。
背景:道德痛苦影响了全球范围内收到请求并参与安乐死或医生协助自杀(E/PAS)的相当大比例的临床医生。据报道,个人和专业支持需求往往得不到解决,只有少数报告不利影响的人寻求支持。目的:本研究旨在回顾2017年至2023年的研究,以了解医生使用E/PAS的感知风险、危害和益处,以及由此产生的医学专业伦理影响。方法:检索2017年6月至2023年12月在同行评议的英语文献中发表的原创研究论文,以扩展先前的评审。这包括报告定量和定性数据的两项研究,特别关注医生参与E/PAS的影响或反应。定量评价以系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)为指导。质性评价使用关键评估技能程序来评估研究是否有效、可靠和值得信赖。结果:共纳入30项研究(定量方法5项,定性方法22项,混合方法3项),均符合可接受的研究评价标准。从综合定性研究中产生了以下5个主题:(1)行政管理之前的请求经验;(2)医生在病人死亡中的角色和代理;(3)管理后的道德困境;(4)工作量和倦怠;(5)专业指导和支持。定量和定性研究都表明,相当大比例的临床医生(45.8-80%)因参与E/PAS而受到不利影响,只有少数报告不利影响的人寻求支持。结果的意义:参与E/PAS可以奖励一些人,并引起另一些人的道德痛苦。对于许多临床医生来说,这可能包括严重的个人和专业不良后果,从而影响整个医疗行业。
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
Palliative & Supportive Care
Palliative & Supportive Care HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
280
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信