Sheahan L
St George and Calvary Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Values Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Intern Med J. 2016 Apr;46(4):443-51. doi: 10.1111/imj.13009.
Legalisation of physician-assisted dying (PAD) remains a highly contested issue. In the Australasian context, the opinion and perspective of palliative care specialists have not been captured empirically, and are required to inform better the debate around this issue, moving forward.
To identify current attitudes and experiences of palliative care specialists in Australasia regarding requests for physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, and to capture the opinion of palliative care specialists on the legalisation of these practices in the Australasian context.
An anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey of Australasian specialists in palliative care, addressing the following six areas: (i) demographics; (ii) frequency of requests, and response given; (iii) understanding of the term 'voluntary euthanasia'; (iv) opinion regarding legalisation of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in Australasia, and willingness to participate if legal; (v) identification of the most important values guiding this opinion; and (vi) anticipated impact that legalisation of assisted death would have on palliative care practice.
Important findings include: (i) palliative care specialists are largely opposed to the legalisation of PAD; (ii) the proportional titration of opioids is not understood by any palliative care specialist studied to be 'voluntary euthanasia'; and (iii) there is a wide variation in frequency of requests, and one-third of palliative care specialists express discomfort in dealing with requests for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Key areas for future research at the interface between PAD and best practice end-of-life care are identified, including exploration into why palliative care specialists are largely opposed to PAD, and consideration of the impact 'the opioid misconception' may have on the literature informing this debate.
医生协助死亡(PAD)的合法化仍然是一个极具争议的问题。在澳大拉西亚地区,姑息治疗专家的意见和观点尚未通过实证研究得到体现,而这对于推动围绕该问题的更好辩论是必要的。
确定澳大拉西亚地区姑息治疗专家对于医生协助自杀和自愿安乐死请求的当前态度和经历,并了解姑息治疗专家对于在澳大拉西亚地区将这些做法合法化的看法。
对澳大拉西亚地区的姑息治疗专家进行一项匿名的横断面在线调查,涉及以下六个方面:(i)人口统计学;(ii)请求的频率及给出的回应;(iii)对“自愿安乐死”一词的理解;(iv)对于在澳大拉西亚地区将医生协助自杀和自愿安乐死合法化的看法,以及如果合法化是否愿意参与;(v)确定指导该看法的最重要价值观;(vi)预期协助死亡合法化对姑息治疗实践的影响。
重要发现包括:(i)姑息治疗专家大多反对PAD合法化;(ii)在所研究的任何姑息治疗专家中,均不认为阿片类药物的比例滴定是“自愿安乐死”;(iii)请求的频率差异很大,三分之一的姑息治疗专家表示在处理协助自杀或安乐死请求时感到不适。
确定了PAD与最佳临终关怀实践之间未来研究的关键领域,包括探究为何姑息治疗专家大多反对PAD,以及考虑“阿片类药物误解”可能对为这场辩论提供信息的文献产生的影响。