To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine - Tập 25 Số 2 - Trang 112-120 - 2008
Farr A. Curlin1, Chinyere Nwodim2, Jennifer Vance3, Marshall H. Chin1, John D. Lantos4
1Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Universtiy of Chicago, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Chicago, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago,
2Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago,
3Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Universtiy of Chicago
4Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Chicago, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Department of Pediatrics, Section of General Pediatrics The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Tóm tắt

This study analyzes data from a national survey to estimate the proportion of physicians who currently object to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), terminal sedation (TS), and withdrawal of artificial life support (WLS), and to examine associations between such objections and physician ethnicity, religious characteristics, and experience caring for dying patients. Overall, 69% of the US physicians object to PAS, 18% to TS, and 5% to WLS. Highly religious physicians are more likely than those with low religiosity to object to both PAS (84% vs 55%, P < .001) and TS (25% vs 12%, P < .001). Objection to PAS or TS is also associated with being of Asian ethnicity, of Hindu religious affiliation, and having more experience caring for dying patients. These findings suggest that, with respect to morally contested interventions at the end of life, the medical care patients receive will vary based on their physicians' religious characteristics, ethnicity, and experience caring for dying patients.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1188/03.CJON.653-657

10.7326/0003-4819-141-3-200408030-00006

10.7326/0003-4819-132-10-200005160-00011

10.1056/NEJM200002243420806

10.1200/JCO.1995.13.5.1055

10.1097/01.SMJ.0000051144.80620.C1

10.1136/jme.2003.004895

10.1177/104990910402100514

10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0119.x

10.1001/jama.280.6.507

10.2105/AJPH.85.3.367

10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03323.x

10.1086/268149

10.2307/1966553

Hamel R., DuBose ER Views of the major faith traditions. In: Hamel R, ed. Active Euthanasia, Religion and the Public Debate . Chicago, IL: Park Ridge Center; 1991:45-77.

10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51364.x

10.1023/A:1010361019006

10.12968/ijpn.2003.9.6.11509

10.1136/jme.26.4.254

10.1056/NEJM199602013340507

10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.061

10.1001/jama.290.6.790

10.1200/JCO.1997.15.2.418

10.1097/00003246-199908000-00042

10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb138638.x

10.1056/NEJM199602013340506

Curlin FA, 2006, Med Care, 44, 446, 10.1097/01.mlr.0000207434.12450.ef

10.1056/NEJMsa065316

10.1037/h0021212

10.2307/1384677

10.1176/ajp.154.6.885b

10.2307/1386745

10.7326/0003-4819-136-9-200205070-00010

Groves RM, 2004, Survey Methodology

10.1056/NEJM199804233381706

10.1080/07481189608252764

10.1001/jama.288.1.91

10.1093/sf/77.3.863

10.1093/geront/45.5.634

10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00077-5

10.7326/0003-4819-136-9-200205070-00010

Lichtenstein RL, 1997, J Natl Med Assoc, 89, 125

10.2190/QFXY-Q06A-MT87-4YGM

10.1017/S0098858800002331

10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00007

Crawford SC, 1995, Dilemmas of Life and Death: Hindu Ethics in a North American Context

10.1023/A:1021209706566

10.7326/0003-4819-141-3-200408030-00018

10.1007/BF02448847

10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

Tập 25 Số 2

112-120

Thông tin tác giả