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.