Teisseyre Nathalie, Vanraet Charles, Sorum Paul C, Mullet Etienne
Université du Mirail, Toulouse, France.
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2010 Sep;29(2):14.1-24. doi: 10.1007/BF03351524.
Euthanasia is performed on occasion, even on newborns, but is highly controversial, and it is prohibited by law and condemned by medical ethics in most countries.
To characterise and compare the judgments of lay persons, nurses, and physicians of the acceptability of actively ending the life of a damaged newborn.
Convenience samples of 237 lay persons, 214 nurses, and 76 physicians in the south of France rated the acceptability on a scale of 0-10 of giving a lethal injection in 54 scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 within-subject factors: gestational age of 6, 7, or 9 months; 3 levels of severity of either perinatal asphyxia or of genetic disease; attitude of the parents about prolonging care unknown, favourable, or unfavourable; and decision made individually by the physician or collectively by the medical team. Overall ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and each cluster to analysis of variance and graphic representation.
Lay persons (mean acceptability rating 4.29) were significantly more favourable to euthanasia than nurses (2.84), p < .005, or physicians (2.12), p < .005. Five clusters were found with different judgment rules, i.e., how the information was integrated. More physicians (30 per cent) than nurses (14 per cent), p < .01, or lay persons (11 per cent), p < .01, rated euthanasia as never, under any condition, acceptable. Most, however, asserted that it was increasingly acceptable as the factors combined to favour it, especially when the parents desired to stop treatment. More physicians (45 per cent) and nurses (46 per cent) than lay persons (21 per cent), p < .01, used a complex conjunctive rule (level of parent's attitude x level of severity of damage x consultation with team or not) rather than a simple additive rule.
Unlike law and medical ethics, most of the lay persons, nurses, and physicians judged the acceptability of euthanasia as a function of the circumstances. Most health professionals combined the factors in a conjunctive (multiplicative), rather than additive, fashion in accordance with legislation for adults in The Netherlands and elsewhere that requires a set of criteria to be fulfilled before it is legitimate to end a patient's life.
安乐死偶尔会实施,甚至针对新生儿,但极具争议性,在大多数国家都被法律禁止且受到医学伦理的谴责。
描述并比较外行人员、护士和医生对于主动结束受损新生儿生命可接受性的判断。
在法国南部,选取237名外行人员、214名护士和76名医生作为便利样本,让他们在0至10的量表上对54种情形下实施致命注射的可接受性进行评分。这些情形由4个受试者内因素的所有组合构成:胎龄为6个月、7个月或9个月;围产期窒息或遗传病的3个严重程度级别;父母对延长治疗的态度未知、支持或反对;以及由医生单独做出决定或由医疗团队集体做出决定。对总体评分进行聚类分析,对每个聚类进行方差分析和图形展示。
外行人员(平均可接受性评分4.29)比护士(2.84),p <.005,或医生(2.12),p <.005,对安乐死明显更为支持。发现了5个具有不同判断规则的聚类,即信息如何整合。将安乐死评为在任何情况下都绝对不可接受的医生(30%)多于护士(14%),p <.01,或外行人员(11%),p <.01。然而,大多数人断言,随着有利于安乐死的因素综合起来,其可接受性越来越高,尤其是当父母希望停止治疗时。使用复杂联合规则(父母态度水平×损害严重程度水平×是否与团队协商)而非简单相加规则的医生(45%)和护士(46%)多于外行人员(21%),p <.01。
与法律和医学伦理不同,大多数外行人员、护士和医生根据具体情况判断安乐死的可接受性。大多数卫生专业人员按照荷兰和其他地方针对成年人的立法,以联合(相乘)而非相加的方式综合这些因素,该立法要求在结束患者生命合法之前要满足一系列标准。