Modern bioethical issues: Euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion. Comparative study of attitudes between physicians and law professionals.

Q3 Medicine
Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki Pub Date : 2022-03-28 Epub Date: 2021-11-26 DOI:10.22365/jpsych.2021.043
Nafsika Malikentzou, Athanasios Douzenis, Fotios Chatzinikolaou, Panagiota Bali, Ioannis Michopoulos
{"title":"Modern bioethical issues: Euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion. Comparative study of attitudes between physicians and law professionals.","authors":"Nafsika Malikentzou,&nbsp;Athanasios Douzenis,&nbsp;Fotios Chatzinikolaou,&nbsp;Panagiota Bali,&nbsp;Ioannis Michopoulos","doi":"10.22365/jpsych.2021.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to examine and compare the attitudes of physicians and law professionals on modern bioethical issues. Euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion were selected for this study, as they underline the conflict between human life as a fundamental value, and the individual's right to self-determination. The demand of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide services reflects each person's right to decide on the way their life will end, while the legalization of abortion determines the individual's right to self-determination. These are complex issues with moral, religious and social implications, and as such tend to divide public opinion. In order to investigate their attitudes, physicians of all specialties, as well as law professionals from all over Greece, were invited to participate in the study. In total, 220 professionals responded to the call and participated in the survey. The professionals involved showed fairly high rates of agreement in all the issues studied, but a significant difference in results was found when the occupation of participants was set as a criterion, with physicians being more negative to euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion than lawyers. Religiousness, age and male sex were negatively correlated with \"positive\" attitudes towards euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion. Moreover, participants' attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide were found to predict their attitudes towards abortion, indicating a single ideological direction of agreement or disagreement, accordingly. Individuals' attitudes and opinions are complicated issues, not easy to be categorized. However, it is of scientific interest to shape a legislative framework that is close to the social consensus, ideological evolution and moral needs. This study tried to pave the way for a modern approach to the issues of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion.</p>","PeriodicalId":20741,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22365/jpsych.2021.043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We aimed to examine and compare the attitudes of physicians and law professionals on modern bioethical issues. Euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion were selected for this study, as they underline the conflict between human life as a fundamental value, and the individual's right to self-determination. The demand of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide services reflects each person's right to decide on the way their life will end, while the legalization of abortion determines the individual's right to self-determination. These are complex issues with moral, religious and social implications, and as such tend to divide public opinion. In order to investigate their attitudes, physicians of all specialties, as well as law professionals from all over Greece, were invited to participate in the study. In total, 220 professionals responded to the call and participated in the survey. The professionals involved showed fairly high rates of agreement in all the issues studied, but a significant difference in results was found when the occupation of participants was set as a criterion, with physicians being more negative to euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion than lawyers. Religiousness, age and male sex were negatively correlated with "positive" attitudes towards euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion. Moreover, participants' attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide were found to predict their attitudes towards abortion, indicating a single ideological direction of agreement or disagreement, accordingly. Individuals' attitudes and opinions are complicated issues, not easy to be categorized. However, it is of scientific interest to shape a legislative framework that is close to the social consensus, ideological evolution and moral needs. This study tried to pave the way for a modern approach to the issues of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and abortion.

现代生物伦理问题:安乐死,医生协助自杀和堕胎。医师与法律专业人员态度的比较研究。
我们的目的是检查和比较医生和法律专业人士对现代生物伦理问题的态度。本研究选择安乐死、医生协助自杀和堕胎,因为它们强调了作为基本价值的人类生命与个人自决权利之间的冲突。安乐死和医生协助自杀服务的需求反映了每个人决定自己生命结束方式的权利,而堕胎的合法化决定了个人的自决权。这些都是涉及道德、宗教和社会的复杂问题,因此往往导致公众意见分歧。为了调查他们的态度,所有专业的医生以及来自希腊各地的法律专业人士都被邀请参加了这项研究。总共有220名专业人士响应并参与了调查。参与调查的专业人员在所有问题上都表现出相当高的认同率,但当参与者的职业被设定为标准时,结果发现了显著的差异,医生对安乐死、医生协助自杀和堕胎的态度比律师更消极。宗教信仰、年龄和男性对安乐死、医生协助自杀和堕胎的“积极”态度呈负相关。此外,研究发现,参与者对安乐死和医生协助自杀的态度可以预测他们对堕胎的态度,从而显示出一个单一的思想方向,即同意或不同意。个人的态度和意见是复杂的问题,不容易归类。然而,塑造一个接近社会共识、意识形态演变和道德需要的立法框架具有科学意义。这项研究试图为安乐死、医生协助自杀和堕胎等问题的现代方法铺平道路。
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
Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki
Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
×
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