More than half of doctors will consider assisting their death

When faced with advanced cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, more than half of the doctors who investigated in eight different regions consider their own poisoning.

The finding comes from a new international study that reveals significant differences in physician termination preferences, depending on their practice.

The study, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, surveyed 1,157 doctors in North America, Europe and Australia. What emerges is how local laws shape personal medical choices even among those who are committed to healing others’ lives.

Location is more important than you think

Perhaps the most eye-catching discovery? Geography plays a huge role in shaping doctors’ attitudes. Since 2002, assisted dying people are legal in Belgium, with about 81% of doctors considering euthanasia a good choice for advanced cancer. Comparing it to Italy’s staying illegal, only 38% of people feel the same.

Modes in different scenarios and areas. Doctors who practice euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are three times more likely to be euthanasia for cancer, while Alzheimer’s disease is almost twice as likely to be.

“This may be because these doctors are more familiar and comfortable with these practices and have observed positive clinical outcomes,” the researchers explained. “This also suggests that macro factors affect individual attitudes and preferences to a large extent, and that doctors may be affected by “normal” practices in their own jurisdiction.”

What do doctors actually want

In all areas surveyed, physicians showed significant consistency in refusing active life-sustaining measures. In cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, less than 1% of people need CPR or mechanical ventilation. Only about 4% of people choose tube feeding.

Instead, the vast majority (94% of cancers account for 94% and 91% of Alzheimer’s) stood out to relieve the symptoms. This preference cuts all countries and shows a general medical understanding of the constituting dignified end-of-life care.

The study included doctors from a variety of legal settings: Oregon (where physician-assisted suicides have been legal since 1997), Wisconsin and Georgia (Georgia remains illegal), Canada, Belgium, Italy, and Victoria and Queensland, Australia.

Professional Divide

Not all doctors are thinking. Palliative care physicians show different preferences from general practitioners and other specialists. They are more likely to support palliative sedatives, a practice that induces unconscious pain relief, to help with dying options.

This makes sense when you think about their daily routine. Palliative care physicians know better about sedatives and may be easier to manage than assisted death. Preference may also reflect different ethical frameworks, as palliative sedatives align with traditional medical values, i.e. traditional medical values ​​that relieve pain without directly accelerating death.

Religion plays a predictable but important role. Non-religious physicians are more likely to consider physician-assisted suicide (65% vs. 38%) or euthanasia (72% vs. 40%) than those with strong religious beliefs.

Alzheimer’s Dilemma

One of the most thought-provoking findings of the study involved the condition of Alzheimer’s. Despite the progressive nature of dementia, most jurisdictions have legal dying requests, a large number of doctors will still consider it themselves.

In Belgium, despite legal barriers, 67% of doctors believe euthanasia is a good choice for Alzheimer’s disease. In Georgia, that number dropped to 37%. This highlights what the researchers call “There is a need for further discussion of assisted dying, especially for end-of-life practices for complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.”

This finding reveals a profound one about how medical professionals view cognitive decline and quality of life, even if they don’t realize that these findings undoubtedly affect their patient care.

When individuals meet

These preferences are important because studies show that physicians’ personal views greatly influence their clinical practice. GPs who prepare their own advanced instructions tend to have end-of-life discussions with their patients more frequently. At the same time, doctors’ perceptions of what patients want are usually manifested by their own preferences.

This creates moral tensions. Should doctors share their personal preferences with patients facing similar decisions? Many doctors will feel uncomfortable and provide information that they think may be biased by the patient, but patients often value knowing what doctors will choose.

This study reveals interesting contradictions in current medical practice. Although doctors overwhelmingly wish to avoid active maintenance of their own life-sustaining therapies, these same treatments are still widely used in patients at the end of their lives.

“These findings guarantee reflection in current clinical practice, because the treatment of life is still widely used in patients, but doctors are not their first choice,” the researchers noted.

expect

As more regions consider legalizing assisted death, the study provides key insights into how law shapes a medical culture. The study shows that legalization not only provides new options, but also fundamentally changes the perceptions of death and death among healthcare professionals.

Whether this represents progress or attention depends largely on your point of view. But one thing seems clear: the conversation about end-of-life care is far from over, and the voices of those who guide others through these final decisions deserve careful attention.

For patients navigating these difficult waters, understanding their doctor’s advice may be influenced by local laws and personal beliefs, adding another layer of complexity to already challenging decisions. Perhaps the most important point is that in an age of expanding medical options, open, honest conversations about value, preference, and the constituting good death.

Related