安乐死与医生协助自杀:近10年来医学生态度的系统回顾。

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICAL ETHICS
Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Pub Date : 2020-12-12 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.18502/jmehm.v13i22.4864
Alejandro Gutierrez-Castillo, Javier Gutierrez-Castillo, Francisco Guadarrama-Conzuelo, Amado Jimenez-Ruiz, Jose Luis Ruiz-Sandoval
{"title":"安乐死与医生协助自杀:近10年来医学生态度的系统回顾。","authors":"Alejandro Gutierrez-Castillo,&nbsp;Javier Gutierrez-Castillo,&nbsp;Francisco Guadarrama-Conzuelo,&nbsp;Amado Jimenez-Ruiz,&nbsp;Jose Luis Ruiz-Sandoval","doi":"10.18502/jmehm.v13i22.4864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed at examining the approval rate of the medical students' regarding active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and physician-assisted-suicide over the last ten years. To do so, the arguments and variables affecting students' choices were examined and a systematic review was conducted, using PubMed and Web of Science databases, including articles from January 2009 to December 2018. From 135 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The highest acceptance rates for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were from European countries. The most common arguments supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were the followings: (<i>i</i>) patient's autonomy (n = 6), (<i>ii</i>) relief of suffering (n = 4), and (<i>ii</i>) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2). The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: (<i>i</i>) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), (<i>ii</i>) the \"slippery slope\" argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and (<i>iii</i>) the physician's role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the most significant variables to influence the students' attitude. However, age, previous academic experience, family income, and place of residence had no significant impact. Medical students' opinions on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be appropriately addressed and evaluated because their moral compass, under the influence of such opinions, will guide them in solving future ethical and therapeutic dilemmas in the medical field.</p>","PeriodicalId":45276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d1/09/JMEHM-13-22.PMC7839145.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students' attitudes in the last 10 years.\",\"authors\":\"Alejandro Gutierrez-Castillo,&nbsp;Javier Gutierrez-Castillo,&nbsp;Francisco Guadarrama-Conzuelo,&nbsp;Amado Jimenez-Ruiz,&nbsp;Jose Luis Ruiz-Sandoval\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/jmehm.v13i22.4864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed at examining the approval rate of the medical students' regarding active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and physician-assisted-suicide over the last ten years. To do so, the arguments and variables affecting students' choices were examined and a systematic review was conducted, using PubMed and Web of Science databases, including articles from January 2009 to December 2018. From 135 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The highest acceptance rates for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were from European countries. The most common arguments supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were the followings: (<i>i</i>) patient's autonomy (n = 6), (<i>ii</i>) relief of suffering (n = 4), and (<i>ii</i>) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2). The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: (<i>i</i>) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), (<i>ii</i>) the \\\"slippery slope\\\" argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and (<i>iii</i>) the physician's role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the most significant variables to influence the students' attitude. However, age, previous academic experience, family income, and place of residence had no significant impact. Medical students' opinions on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be appropriately addressed and evaluated because their moral compass, under the influence of such opinions, will guide them in solving future ethical and therapeutic dilemmas in the medical field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d1/09/JMEHM-13-22.PMC7839145.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v13i22.4864\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v13i22.4864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本研究旨在探讨近十年来医学生对主动安乐死、被动安乐死及医师协助自杀的认同程度。为此,研究人员检查了影响学生选择的论点和变量,并使用PubMed和Web of Science数据库进行了系统评价,包括2009年1月至2018年12月的文章。在135篇确定的文章中,13篇符合纳入标准。安乐死和医生协助自杀的接受率最高的是欧洲国家。支持安乐死和医生协助自杀最常见的论点如下:(i)病人的自主权(n = 6), (ii)减轻痛苦(n = 4), (ii)认为临终病人是额外的负担(n = 2)。反对安乐死最常见的论点如下:(i)宗教和个人信仰(n = 4), (ii) "滑坡"论点和虐待风险(n = 4),以及(iii)医生在保护生命方面的作用(n = 2)。宗教(n = 7)、宗教信仰(n = 5)和原医学院的属性(n = 3)是影响学生态度的最重要变量。而年龄、学历、家庭收入、居住地对学生学业成绩无显著影响。医学生对安乐死和医生协助自杀的看法应该得到适当的处理和评估,因为在这些观点的影响下,他们的道德指南针将指导他们解决未来医学领域的伦理和治疗困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students' attitudes in the last 10 years.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students' attitudes in the last 10 years.

This study aimed at examining the approval rate of the medical students' regarding active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and physician-assisted-suicide over the last ten years. To do so, the arguments and variables affecting students' choices were examined and a systematic review was conducted, using PubMed and Web of Science databases, including articles from January 2009 to December 2018. From 135 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The highest acceptance rates for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were from European countries. The most common arguments supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were the followings: (i) patient's autonomy (n = 6), (ii) relief of suffering (n = 4), and (ii) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2). The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: (i) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), (ii) the "slippery slope" argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and (iii) the physician's role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the most significant variables to influence the students' attitude. However, age, previous academic experience, family income, and place of residence had no significant impact. Medical students' opinions on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be appropriately addressed and evaluated because their moral compass, under the influence of such opinions, will guide them in solving future ethical and therapeutic dilemmas in the medical field.

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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
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