Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 10951920

Are Medical Ethicists out of Touch? Practitioner Attitudes in the US and UK Towards Decisions at the End of Life

Overview
Journal J Med Ethics
Publisher BMJ Publishing Group
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2000 Aug 22
PMID 10951920
Citations 21
Authors
D L Dickenson
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: 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".

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Citing Articles

Withdrawal of life sustaining therapies for awake patients in critical care: The benefits of a collaborative intensivist & palliative care approach.

Edwardson S, Kellichan R, Reid C, Baruah R, Hall C J Intensive Care Soc. 2025; :17511437251324054.

PMID: 40052004 PMC: 11881096. DOI: 10.1177/17511437251324054.

Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.

Ketchaikosol N, Pinyopornpanish K, Angkurawaranon C, Dejkriengkraikul N, Chutarattanakul L BMC Palliat Care. 2024; 23(1):206.

PMID: 39138443 PMC: 11320918. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01511-6.

Attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward end-of-life care among physicians in sub-Saharan Africa.

Rosenberg N, Mateyo K, Mokute K, Otieno G, Hui K, Riviello E Pan Afr Med J. 2023; 45:167.

PMID: 37900203 PMC: 10611914. DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2023.45.167.40855.

The Emotions in Bioethical Decision-making.

Glick S Yale J Biol Med. 2022; 95(3):355-358.

PMID: 36187417 PMC: 9511948.

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.

Strand L, Sandman L, Tinghog G, Nedlund A BMC Med Ethics. 2022; 23(1):63.

PMID: 35751123 PMC: 9233323. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00805-9.

References
1.
Gillon R . "Futility"--too ambiguous and pejorative a term?. J Med Ethics. 1998; 23(6):339-40. PMC: 1377573. DOI: 10.1136/jme.23.6.339. View
2.
Hilberman M, Kutner J, Parsons D, Murphy D . Marginally effective medical care: ethical analysis of issues in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). J Med Ethics. 1998; 23(6):361-7. PMC: 1377578. DOI: 10.1136/jme.23.6.361. View
3.
Gunderman R . Medicine & the pursuit of wealth. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998; 28(1):8-13. View
4.
Daniels N, Sabin J . Last chance therapies and managed care. Pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998; 28(2):27-41. View
5.
Hopkins P . Why does removing machines count as "passive" euthanasia?. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997; 27(3):29-37. View