• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Are medical ethicists out of touch? Practitioner attitudes in the US and UK towards decisions at the end of life.医学伦理学家脱离实际了吗？美国和英国从业者对临终决策的态度。
J Med Ethics. 2000 Aug;26(4):254-60. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.254.
2
Semantic and moral debates about hastening death: a survey of bioethicists.关于加速死亡的语义和道德辩论：生物伦理学家调查
J Clin Ethics. 1997 Fall;8(3):242-9.
3
Attitudes of medical students, housestaff, and faculty physicians toward euthanasia and termination of life-sustaining treatment.医学生、住院医师和临床教师对安乐死及终止维持生命治疗的态度。
Crit Care Med. 1992 May;20(5):683-90. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199205000-00023.
4
Medical ethics and clinical practice: a 2-way street, not a great divide.医学伦理与临床实践：一条双向道，而非巨大鸿沟。
West J Med. 2001 Feb;174(2):110-1. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.174.2.110.
5
Practitioners' attitudes towards ethical issues at the end of life: is the UK actually more autonomy-minded than the US?从业者对临终伦理问题的态度：英国在对待自主权方面是否真的比美国更开明？
J Palliat Care. 1999 Winter;15(4):57-63.
6
Limits of patient autonomy. Physician attitudes and practices regarding life-sustaining treatments and euthanasia.患者自主权的限制。医生对维持生命治疗和安乐死的态度及做法。
Arch Intern Med. 1993 Mar 22;153(6):722-8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.153.6.722.
7
Decisions near the end of life: professional views on life-sustaining treatments.临终决策：关于维持生命治疗的专业观点
Am J Public Health. 1993 Jan;83(1):14-23. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.1.14.
8
Euthanasia: an introduction to a moral dilemma.安乐死：道德困境导论。
Curr Theol Mission. 1976 Apr;3(2):67-78.
9
The Appleton Consensus: suggested international guidelines for decisions to forego medical treatment.阿普尔顿共识：关于放弃医疗治疗决策的国际建议指南。
J Med Ethics. 1989 Sep;15(3):129-36. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.3.129.
10
End-of-life issues in intensive care units: a national random survey of nurses' knowledge and beliefs.重症监护病房中的临终问题：一项关于护士知识与信念的全国随机调查。
Am J Crit Care. 2001 Jul;10(4):216-29.

引用本文的文献

1
Withdrawal of life sustaining therapies for awake patients in critical care: The benefits of a collaborative intensivist & palliative care approach.重症监护中为清醒患者撤除维持生命治疗：重症医学专家与姑息治疗协作方法的益处
J Intensive Care Soc. 2025 Mar 4:17511437251324054. doi: 10.1177/17511437251324054.
2
Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.泰国清迈大学医院医生对终止和撤回生命支持治疗的经验和看法：一项横断面研究。
BMC Palliat Care. 2024 Aug 13;23(1):206. doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01511-6.
3
Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey.今日生物伦理学家：生物伦理学观点调查结果。
Am J Bioeth. 2024 Sep;24(9):9-24. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2024.2337425. Epub 2024 May 6.
4
Attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward end-of-life care among physicians in sub-Saharan Africa.撒哈拉以南非洲地区医生对临终关怀的态度、信念和实践。
Pan Afr Med J. 2023 Aug 18;45:167. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2023.45.167.40855. eCollection 2023.
5
The Emotions in Bioethical Decision-making.生物伦理决策中的情感。
Yale J Biol Med. 2022 Sep 30;95(3):355-358. eCollection 2022 Sep.
6
Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.在医疗资源配给中撤回或拒绝治疗：一项关于伦理观点和影响的访谈研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Jun 24;23(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00805-9.
7
Medical communication and decision-making about assisted hydration in the last days of life: A qualitative study of doctors experienced with end of life care.生命末期辅助补液的医学沟通和决策：对有临终关怀经验的医生的定性研究。
Palliat Med. 2022 Jul;36(7):1080-1091. doi: 10.1177/02692163221097309. Epub 2022 May 21.
8
Top Ethical Issues Concerning Healthcare Providers Working in Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯医护工作者的主要伦理问题。
J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(2):143-152. doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.191211.001.
9
Common medical ethical issues faced by healthcare professionals in KSA.沙特阿拉伯医疗保健专业人员面临的常见医学伦理问题。
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2019 Oct 3;14(5):412-417. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.09.001. eCollection 2019 Oct.
10
Beyond the Equivalence Thesis: how to think about the ethics of withdrawing and withholding life-saving medical treatment.超越等效性论点：如何思考撤销和停止挽救生命的医疗治疗的伦理问题。
Theor Med Bioeth. 2019 Feb;40(1):21-41. doi: 10.1007/s11017-019-09478-9.

本文引用的文献

1
Practitioners' attitudes towards ethical issues at the end of life: is the UK actually more autonomy-minded than the US?从业者对临终伦理问题的态度：英国在对待自主权方面是否真的比美国更开明？
J Palliat Care. 1999 Winter;15(4):57-63.
2
Last chance therapies and managed care. Pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy.最后机会疗法与管理式医疗。多元主义、公平程序与合法性。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1998 Mar-Apr;28(2):27-41.
3
Medicine & the pursuit of wealth.医学与对财富的追求。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1998 Jan-Feb;28(1):8-13.
4
Marginally effective medical care: ethical analysis of issues in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).疗效甚微的医疗救治：心肺复苏术（CPR）相关问题的伦理分析
J Med Ethics. 1997 Dec;23(6):361-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.6.361.
5
"Futility"--too ambiguous and pejorative a term?“无意义”—— 是一个过于模糊且带有贬义的术语吗？
J Med Ethics. 1997 Dec;23(6):339-40. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.6.339.
6
Medical futility and the social context.医疗无效性与社会背景
J Med Ethics. 1997 Jun;23(3):148-53. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.148.
7
Why does removing machines count as "passive" euthanasia?为什么移除机器被视为“被动”安乐死？
Hastings Cent Rep. 1997 May-Jun;27(3):29-37.
8
Decisions near the end of life: professional views on life-sustaining treatments.临终决策：关于维持生命治疗的专业观点
Am J Public Health. 1993 Jan;83(1):14-23. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.1.14.
9
Can there be an ethics of care?能否存在一种关怀伦理？
J Med Ethics. 1995 Feb;21(1):19-24. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.1.19.

医学伦理学家脱离实际了吗？美国和英国从业者对临终决策的态度。

Are medical ethicists out of touch? Practitioner attitudes in the US and UK towards decisions at the end of life.

作者信息

Dickenson D L

机构信息

Imperial College School of Medicine, London.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2000 Aug;26(4):254-60. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.254.

DOI:10.1136/jme.26.4.254
PMID:10951920
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1733246/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether UK and US health care professionals share the views of medical ethicists about medical futility, withdrawing/withholding treatment, ordinary/extraordinary interventions, and the doctrine of double effect.

DESIGN, SUBJECTS AND SETTING: A 138-item attitudinal questionnaire completed by 469 UK nurses studying the Open University course on "Death and Dying" was compared with a similar questionnaire administered to 759 US nurses and 687 US doctors taking the Hastings Center course on "Decisions near the End of Life".

RESULTS

Practitioners accept the relevance of concepts widely disparaged by bioethicists: double effect, medical futility, and the distinctions between heroic/ordinary interventions and withholding/withdrawing treatment. Within the UK nurses' group a "rationalist" axis of respondents who describe themselves as having "no religion" are closer to the bioethics consensus on withholding and withdrawing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals' beliefs differ substantially from the recommendations of their professional bodies and from majority opinion in bioethics. Bioethicists should be cautious about assuming that their opinions will be readily accepted by practitioners.

摘要

目的

评估英国和美国的医疗保健专业人员对于医疗无效、停止/ withholding治疗、普通/特殊干预措施以及双重效应原则的看法是否与医学伦理学家一致。

设计、研究对象与研究背景：对469名参加开放大学“死亡与临终”课程学习的英国护士所填写的一份包含138个条目的态度调查问卷，与对759名美国护士和687名美国医生所进行的一份类似调查问卷进行比较，后者参加的是黑斯廷斯中心的“临终决策”课程。

结果

从业者认可一些被生物伦理学家广泛贬低的概念的相关性：双重效应、医疗无效，以及英勇/普通干预措施与停止/ withholding治疗之间的区别。在英国护士群体中，那些将自己描述为“无宗教信仰”的受访者所构成的“理性主义者”轴，在停止和 withholding治疗方面更接近生物伦理学界的共识。

结论

专业人员的信念与他们专业团体的建议以及生物伦理学的主流观点存在很大差异。生物伦理学家在假定他们的观点会被从业者轻易接受时应谨慎行事。