Palliative & supportive care · 2025
Narrative review of the impact on physicians of administering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and its association with moral distress.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pinto Priyanka, Fogarty Gerald Blaise, Kissane David
Аннотация
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.
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.