Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Jan;55(1):65-74.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.05.009. Epub 2017 Aug 15.
Although religion often informs ethical judgments, little is known about the views of American clergy regarding controversial end-of-life ethical issues including allowing to die and physician aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide (PAD/PAS).
To describe the views of U.S. clergy concerning allowing to die and PAD/PAS.
A survey was mailed to 1665 nationally representative clergy between 8/2014 to 3/2015 (60% response rate). Outcome variables included beliefs about whether the terminally ill should ever be "allowed to die" and moral/legal opinions concerning PAD/PAS.
Most U.S. clergy are Christian (98%). Clergy agreed that there are circumstances in which the terminally ill should be "allowed to die" (80%). A minority agreed that PAD/PAS was morally (28%) or legally (22%) acceptable. Mainline/Liberal Christian clergy were more likely to approve of the morality (56%) and legality (47%) of PAD/PAS, in contrast to all other clergy groups (6%-17%). Greater end-of-life medical knowledge was associated with moral disapproval of PAD/PAS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19, P = 0.03). Those reporting distrust in health care were less likely to oppose legalization of PAD/PAS (AOR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99, P < 0.02). Religious beliefs associated with disapproval of PAD/PAS included "life's value is not tied to the patient's quality of life" (AOR 2.12; 95% CI, 0.1.49-3.03, P < 0.001) and "only God numbers our days" (AOR 2.60; 95% CI, 1.77-3.82, P < 0.001).
Most U.S. clergy approve of "allowing to die" but reject the morality or legalization of PAD/PAS. Respectful discussion in public discourse should consider rather than ignore underlying religious reasons informing end-of-life controversies.
尽管宗教常常影响道德判断,但对于美国神职人员在临终伦理问题上的观点,包括允许死亡和医生协助自杀或协助自杀(PAD/PAS),人们知之甚少。
描述美国神职人员对允许死亡和 PAD/PAS 的看法。
2014 年 8 月至 2015 年 3 月,对 1665 名全国代表性神职人员进行了邮寄调查(60%的回复率)。结果变量包括对绝症患者是否应“允许死亡”的信念以及对 PAD/PAS 的道德/法律意见。
大多数美国神职人员是基督教徒(98%)。神职人员同意,在某些情况下,绝症患者应该“被允许死亡”(80%)。少数人认为 PAD/PAS 在道德上(28%)或法律上(22%)是可以接受的。主流/自由派基督教神职人员更倾向于批准 PAD/PAS 的道德性(56%)和合法性(47%),而不是所有其他神职人员群体(6%-17%)。更多的临终医疗知识与对 PAD/PAS 的道德反对有关(调整后的优势比[OR],1.51;95%置信区间,1.04-2.19,P=0.03)。那些表示不信任医疗保健的人不太可能反对 PAD/PAS 的合法化(OR 0.93;95%置信区间,0.87-0.99,P<0.02)。与反对 PAD/PAS 相关的宗教信仰包括“生命的价值与患者的生活质量无关”(OR 2.12;95%置信区间,0.1.49-3.03,P<0.001)和“只有上帝决定我们的日子”(OR 2.60;95%置信区间,1.77-3.82,P<0.001)。
大多数美国神职人员赞成“允许死亡”,但反对 PAD/PAS 的道德性或合法化。在公共话语中进行尊重的讨论应该考虑而不是忽视影响临终争议的潜在宗教原因。