加拿大医生在临终医疗援助(MAiD)和撤销维持生命治疗之间的道德区别:一项定性描述性研究。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Midori Matthew, Kieran Bonner, Andrew Stumpf
{"title":"加拿大医生在临终医疗援助(MAiD)和撤销维持生命治疗之间的道德区别:一项定性描述性研究。","authors":"Midori Matthew, Kieran Bonner, Andrew Stumpf","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada following the Carter v. Canada ruling of 2015. In spite of legalization, the ethics of MAiD remain contentious. The bioethical literature has attempted to differentiate MAiD from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WLT) in an effort to examine the nature of the moral difference between the two. However, this research has often neglected the firsthand experiences of the clinicians involved in these procedures. By asking physicians if they perceive the major bioethical accounts as clinically useful, we seek to distinguish between aspects of the contemporary bioethical landscape which are useful at the bedside and those which are divorced from the realities faced by clinicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a qualitative descriptive approach to explore physicians' experiences and bioethical distinctions in providing MAiD and WLT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 physicians, and the transcripts were thematically analyzed to identify common patterns and divergences in their perspectives. Three core themes were found: (1) consensus on MAiD's moral equivalence with WLT despite differences between the practice, (2) discord regarding the use of the term 'killing', and (3) disjuncture between bioethical debates and practice. Theme 1 comprised of three sub-themes: (1.1) no moral difference between MAiD and WLT, (1.2) physician versus underlying medical condition as cause of death, and (1.3) relief of suffering.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In order to have practical utility for clinical practice, it is essential for bioethicists to engage in dialogue with patients and their medical providers pursuing MAiD or WLT. Theoretical debates that are divorced from the realities of terminal illness do not assist physicians with navigating the ethical terrain of ending a patient's life. This research captures meaningful accounts regarding MAiD and WLT that is rooted in the lived experience of the providers of these services in order for bioethical debates to have substantive impact in clinical practice and in legislation surrounding future health policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicians' moral distinctions between medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in Canada: a qualitative descriptive study.\",\"authors\":\"Midori Matthew, Kieran Bonner, Andrew Stumpf\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada following the Carter v. Canada ruling of 2015. In spite of legalization, the ethics of MAiD remain contentious. The bioethical literature has attempted to differentiate MAiD from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WLT) in an effort to examine the nature of the moral difference between the two. However, this research has often neglected the firsthand experiences of the clinicians involved in these procedures. By asking physicians if they perceive the major bioethical accounts as clinically useful, we seek to distinguish between aspects of the contemporary bioethical landscape which are useful at the bedside and those which are divorced from the realities faced by clinicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a qualitative descriptive approach to explore physicians' experiences and bioethical distinctions in providing MAiD and WLT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 physicians, and the transcripts were thematically analyzed to identify common patterns and divergences in their perspectives. Three core themes were found: (1) consensus on MAiD's moral equivalence with WLT despite differences between the practice, (2) discord regarding the use of the term 'killing', and (3) disjuncture between bioethical debates and practice. Theme 1 comprised of three sub-themes: (1.1) no moral difference between MAiD and WLT, (1.2) physician versus underlying medical condition as cause of death, and (1.3) relief of suffering.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In order to have practical utility for clinical practice, it is essential for bioethicists to engage in dialogue with patients and their medical providers pursuing MAiD or WLT. Theoretical debates that are divorced from the realities of terminal illness do not assist physicians with navigating the ethical terrain of ending a patient's life. This research captures meaningful accounts regarding MAiD and WLT that is rooted in the lived experience of the providers of these services in order for bioethical debates to have substantive impact in clinical practice and in legislation surrounding future health policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786344/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7","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

摘要

背景:2015年卡特诉加拿大案裁决后,加拿大将临终医疗援助(MAiD)合法化。尽管已经合法化,MAiD的道德规范仍然存在争议。生物伦理学文献试图区分MAiD和退出维持生命治疗(WLT),以检验两者之间道德差异的本质。然而,这项研究往往忽略了参与这些程序的临床医生的第一手经验。通过询问医生他们是否认为主要的生物伦理学描述在临床上有用,我们试图区分当代生物伦理学景观的各个方面,哪些方面在床边有用,哪些方面与临床医生面临的现实脱节。方法:我们采用定性描述的方法来探讨医生在提供MAiD和WLT时的经验和生物伦理差异。结果:对21名医生进行了半结构化访谈,并对访谈记录进行了主题分析,以确定其观点的共同模式和差异。研究发现了三个核心主题:(1)尽管在实践中存在差异,但人们对MAiD与WLT的道德等同达成了共识;(2)关于“杀戮”一词使用的分歧;(3)生物伦理辩论与实践之间的脱节。主题1由三个子主题组成:(1.1)MAiD和WLT之间没有道德差异,(1.2)医生与潜在医疗状况作为死亡原因,以及(1.3)减轻痛苦。结论:为了在临床实践中具有实际效用,生物伦理学家必须与追求MAiD或WLT的患者及其医疗提供者进行对话。与绝症现实脱节的理论争论无助于医生在结束病人生命的道德领域中导航。这项研究捕获了关于MAiD和WLT的有意义的描述,这些描述植根于这些服务提供者的生活经验,以便生物伦理辩论在临床实践和围绕未来卫生政策的立法中产生实质性影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Physicians' moral distinctions between medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in Canada: a qualitative descriptive study.

Background: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada following the Carter v. Canada ruling of 2015. In spite of legalization, the ethics of MAiD remain contentious. The bioethical literature has attempted to differentiate MAiD from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WLT) in an effort to examine the nature of the moral difference between the two. However, this research has often neglected the firsthand experiences of the clinicians involved in these procedures. By asking physicians if they perceive the major bioethical accounts as clinically useful, we seek to distinguish between aspects of the contemporary bioethical landscape which are useful at the bedside and those which are divorced from the realities faced by clinicians.

Methods: We applied a qualitative descriptive approach to explore physicians' experiences and bioethical distinctions in providing MAiD and WLT.

Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 physicians, and the transcripts were thematically analyzed to identify common patterns and divergences in their perspectives. Three core themes were found: (1) consensus on MAiD's moral equivalence with WLT despite differences between the practice, (2) discord regarding the use of the term 'killing', and (3) disjuncture between bioethical debates and practice. Theme 1 comprised of three sub-themes: (1.1) no moral difference between MAiD and WLT, (1.2) physician versus underlying medical condition as cause of death, and (1.3) relief of suffering.

Conclusions: In order to have practical utility for clinical practice, it is essential for bioethicists to engage in dialogue with patients and their medical providers pursuing MAiD or WLT. Theoretical debates that are divorced from the realities of terminal illness do not assist physicians with navigating the ethical terrain of ending a patient's life. This research captures meaningful accounts regarding MAiD and WLT that is rooted in the lived experience of the providers of these services in order for bioethical debates to have substantive impact in clinical practice and in legislation surrounding future health policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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