Dickenson D L
Imperial College School of Medicine, London.
J Med Ethics. 2000 Aug;26(4):254-60. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.254.
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".
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。