Connect
MJA
MJA

Impact of specialty on attitudes of Australian medical practitioners to end-of-life decisions

Malcolm H Parker, Colleen M Cartwright and Gail M Williams
Med J Aust 2008; 188 (8): 450-456.
Published online: 21 April 2008

Abstract

Objective: To compare attitudes and practices of Australian medical practitioners, by specialty, to a range of medical decisions at the end of life.

Design, setting and participants: As part of an international study, in 2003, a structured questionnaire was mailed to 2964 medical practitioners drawn from membership registers of Australian and Australasian professional colleges. Data from 1478 questionnaires were statistically analysed using validated instruments.

Main outcome measures: Practitioners’ willingness to comply with requests from patients and/or their relatives for symptom relief which might also hasten death; provision of terminal sedation and euthanasia, or willingness to provide these on their own initiative.

Results: Respondents reported being much more willing to comply with a patient’s request for increasing symptom relief, even at risk of hastening death, than for terminal sedation. Over a quarter of respondents would provide terminal sedation to competent patients on their own initiative. A small number of respondents would intentionally hasten death. There were significant differences by specialty for all three actions. Oncologists, palliative care physicians and geriatricians were least likely to actively hasten death, and more likely to act unilaterally to relieve symptoms as a medical necessity.

Conclusions: Perceptions about the causation of death and aspects of medical culture appear to influence physicians’ attitudes towards medical decisions at the end of life. Our findings have implications for medical education, interprofessional communication and discussion between the medical profession and the community.

Over the past few decades, there has been increasing attention paid to medical decisions at the end of life. Medical practitioners frequently have to make decisions that affect the timing of a patient’s death,1-10 and the frequencies with which medical decisions at the end of life occur differ between countries.11,12 Determinants of attitudes and practices relating to such decisions include unbearable pain and suffering,13 incompetence,14 and patient requests,15 as well as characteristics of the treating medical practitioner, such as sex, age, religion and specialty.1,5,16-19

There is ongoing debate about the involvement of medical practitioners in a range of medical end-of-life decisions, such as withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment,6,20 use of drugs for possibly life-shortening alleviation of pain and symptoms,21 or active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.22-24 Given the crucial role that medical practitioners play in this debate, ongoing assessment of their attitudes and practices related to end-of-life decision making is important.

An international study involving researchers in six European countries and Australia was therefore conducted. Results of the study, comparing attitudes and practices across the seven countries have been reported. Findings were that the main predictors of end-of-life decision making were a request from a competent patient, short life expectancy and uncontrolled pain;25 that there was considerable variation between countries in requirements of institutional ethics committees;26 and that most of the variation in responses was accounted for by “country”.27

In this article, we report on the Australian component of the study, conducted in 2003, and present the results of responses, by specialty, to a series of hypothetical situations regarding medical end-of-life decisions.

Methods

Ethical approval was obtained from the Behavioural and Social Science Ethical Review Committee of the University of Queensland.

After ensuring strict confidentiality and privacy, a maximum of 300 medical practitioners were drawn from the membership registers of Australian and Australasian professional colleges of specialties frequently involved in the care of dying patients.

The structured questionnaire used in all seven countries was piloted in Australia. Respondents were asked to provide demographic information, nominate the main clinical specialty in which they were working, and to answer a series of questions based on four hypothetical cases. The cases, three specified courses of action and the conditions under which respondents would take the specified actions are shown in Box 1. Respondents were also asked if they would prescribe drugs to enable the patient to end his or her life if that was what the patient requested. The nature of this question precluded asking about conditions such as requests from relatives, or practitioners taking the action on their own initiative.

The questionnaire was posted to the sample; anonymity was guaranteed by not numbering the questionnaires. Respondents returned a card, separately from the questionnaire, to indicate that they had responded and to request feedback. Reminder letters and non-response forms were sent 3 weeks after the initial mailing.

Statistical analysis

Questionnaires were coded and data were entered into EPI Info, version 6 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, USA) and transferred to SPSS, version 10 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill, USA) for analysis. Double entry was undertaken to ensure accuracy. Weighting factors were used to correct for the different sampling fractions of each specialty and response percentages in the different strata.

Results

Questionnaires were sent to 2964 medical practitioners. After deleting those who were “no longer at this address”, had retired, were overseas or deceased, we had a possible sample of 2896. Completed questionnaires were received from 1540 respondents, giving a response rate of 53%. The 62 respondents who were no longer working as medical practitioners were removed, giving a valid sample of 1478 respondents (Box 2).

Demographic characteristics

Respondents were predominantly male (78%), and more than 70% were aged 40 or more years; 32% had no religious affiliation or spiritual philosophy; 45% claimed affiliation with the three mainstream Australian Christian churches (Anglican, Catholic and Uniting Church), while 15% belonged to a range of other religions and 8% held a non-religious philosophy. Fifty-four per cent of respondents stated that their belief/philosophy was very important or important in their professional attitude towards end-of-life decision making, while 46% said their belief/philosophy was not very or not at all important.

Clinical specialty

Respondents’ self-reported clinical specialties are shown in Box 2; some respondents nominated a primary specialty which was not in accord with their college membership.

Response rates ranged from 42% for general practice to 62% for oncology; for palliative medicine, there was a sample of 28, but 29 respondents self-identified with this specialty (Box 2).

Requests from relatives

Differences between specialty groups did not reach significance for any of the specified actions shown in Box 1 when the patient was competent (Cases 1 and 2), or for increasing drug therapy when the patient was no longer competent (Cases 3 and 4). However, differences reached or approached significance for providing terminal sedation and for giving drugs to hasten the end of the patient’s life in Cases 3 and 4. The range of responses among the specialty groups are shown in Box 3.

Requests from patient/practitioner’s own initiative

Increasing drug therapy: As shown in Box 4, most respondents in every specialist group would accede to a current request from a competent patient (Cases 1 and 2) to provide relief from pain and symptoms by increasing drug therapy, even if this might hasten the end of the patient’s life. In both Cases 1 and 2, palliative care specialists were least likely to report that they would do so, with oncologists also least likely in Case 2. There was greater support from respondents for taking this action on their own initiative in Case 1 than in Case 2.

In both Cases 3 and 4 (patient no longer competent), most respondents reported that they would accede to the patient’s request in an advance directive to increase drug therapy, even at the risk of hastening death. Most also reported that they would take this action on their own initiative. Six of the specialist groups in Case 3 and seven in Case 4 were more likely to take such action on their own initiative than to do so at the request of relatives.

Providing terminal sedation: There was less support for providing terminal sedation, for all four Cases and under all three conditions (Box 5), than for increasing drug therapy which might hasten death. For Case 1 (competent patient in pain, with life expectancy of 2 weeks), geriatricians were least likely to provide terminal sedation, either at the request of the patient or on their own initiative, obstetricians/gynaecologists were the most likely to do so when the patient requested it, and palliative care specialists were most likely to do so on their own initiative; all respondents were more willing to provide it on their own initiative than at the request of relatives. For Case 2 (competent patient with pain controlled, but with symptoms of tiredness, shortness of breath, and bedridden with a life expectancy of 3 months), oncologists were least likely, and obstetricians/gynaecologists most likely, to provide terminal sedation at the patient’s request, and geriatricians were least likely and palliative care specialists most likely to do so on their own initiative, again with all respondents more willing to provide terminal sedation on their own initiative than at the request of relatives.

When the patient was no longer competent, support for terminal sedation was higher; for Case 3 (pain controlled and life expectancy of 2 weeks), a majority in every specialty said they would provide terminal sedation when the patient had requested it in an advance directive, with intensive care specialists being least likely to do so and obstetricians/gynaecologists most likely to do so. Proportions of specialty groups who would provide terminal sedation on their own initiative ranged from 42.4% (anaesthetists and intensive care specialists) to 61.2% (oncologists); six groups were more willing to provide terminal sedation on their own initiative than at the request of relatives. For Case 4 (patient in pain, with life expectancy of 3 months), at least half of the respondents in each group said that they would provide terminal sedation if the patient had requested it in an advance directive (range, 50% [surgeons] to 83% [obstetricians/gynaecologists]). Few would provide terminal sedation on their own initiative, with palliative care specialists (37%) being least likely and obstetricians/gynaecologists (55.7%) being most likely to do so. Despite the fact that less than half of the respondents in eight specialty groups reported that they would provide terminal sedation on their own initiative, five groups were more willing to provide it on their own initiative than at the request of relatives.

Giving drugs to end a patient’s life: As expected, giving drugs explicitly to hasten the end of the patient’s life received lower levels of support in all four Cases and under all conditions than either of the other specific actions (Box 6). For competent patients (Cases 1 and 2), differences between the specialty groups reached significance under the condition of a direct request from the patient in both Cases, with palliative care specialists and oncologists least likely to do so, and anaesthetists most likely to do so. Differences reached significance under the condition of respondents taking this action on their own initiative only for Case 1 (ranging from 3.4% for general practitioners and palliative care specialists to 13.6% for surgeons and 13.9% for anaesthetists). In both Cases 1 and 2, almost all respondents were more likely to undertake the action on their own initiative than at the request of relatives.

For Cases 3 and 4, differences between the groups reached significance under both conditions. More respondents reported that they would give drugs to hasten the end of the patient’s life if requested by a patient in an advance directive than would do so when the patient was competent. In both Cases and under both conditions, anaesthetists were most likely and palliative care specialists and geriatricians least likely to do so. Almost all groups were more willing to give drugs with the explicit intention of hastening the end of the patient’s life on their own initiative than at the request of relatives in Case 3, and seven groups were more willing to do so in Case 4.

Physician-assisted suicide: The proportion of respondents who reported that they would prescribe drugs to enable the patient to end his or her life if that was what the patient requested was 13% in Case 1 and 10% in Case 2. Significant differences by specialty for this question were revealed by χ2 analysis (Box 7).

Groups most likely to report that they would prescribe drugs for the purposes of suicide if the patient requested this in both cases were anaesthetists, followed by obstetricians/gynaecologists, and a further 11% of both groups were undecided about whether or not they would do so. Oncologists and geriatricians were the least likely to report that they would take this action, and were the two groups most likely to report that they would not do so.

Discussion

Overall, our results reflect strong medical support for patient self-determination, but also the acceptance of decision-making responsibility by relatives once competence is lost. Intensifying drug therapy for pain, which could hasten death, was strongly supported for competent patients, but there was far less support for providing terminal sedation, even if requested by a competent patient. This may reflect a feeling that providing terminal sedation is a more direct method of hastening death than increasing pain relief, and is thus less acceptable within medical culture. However, we also note that 26.1% of medical practitioners would be willing to provide terminal sedation on their own initiative to competent patients with poorly controlled pain and 2 weeks to live. For these respondents, the extreme conditions of Case 1 appear to extinguish the need for a request from the patient before taking such action. For patients who have lost their competence, the proportion of medical practitioners willing to institute terminal sedation rises (although not to the levels of willingness to intensify pain treatment), and this is the same if requested by relatives or on the doctor’s own initiative.

Like those of other studies,2 our results indicate that low but significant proportions of medical practitioners would give drugs intentionally to hasten death in different situations, despite the fact that this is unlawful in Australia. Overall, more respondents would, on their own initiative, intentionally hasten the death of incompetent patients than competent patients, but the fact that any medical practitioners would take such unilateral action in relation to competent patients is cause for concern. While we believe that the case descriptions, actions and conditions presented to respondents were unambiguous, it is possible that some of the respondents interpreted “on your own initiative” to mean that they would be willing to broach the subject of giving drugs to hasten death, and to then respond positively to a competent patient’s request — still unlawful, but ethically far less problematic.

Some of the trends discussed for the whole sample are different for individual specialty groups. The intensification of drug therapy, which is legal in Australia if appropriate for the relief of symptoms, was strongly supported across the specialties, although for Case 1, palliative care specialists, and for Case 2, palliative care specialists and oncologists, were least likely to do this. Patients with a 2-week life expectancy and poorly controlled pain received least support for terminal sedation at their own request from geriatricians, and somewhat low levels of support from palliative care specialists and oncologists; conversely, most support for terminal sedation, when initiated by the medical practitioner, came from palliative care specialists and oncologists. For patients with controlled pain and a longer life expectancy, oncologists were least likely to accede to the patient’s request for terminal sedation, and palliative care specialists were most likely to provide terminal sedation on their own initiative. The results suggest that these specialties are less responsive to patient requests for procedures that will lead to death, but more prepared than others to initiate such procedures without patient consultation. We suggest that this may result from a perception that responding to patient requests is more closely associated with actively hastening death than initiating treatment, which may be more easily understood as fulfilling the duty to relieve symptoms as a medical necessity.

Palliative care specialists, oncologists and geriatricians were least likely to respond positively to a request from a competent patient for drugs to hasten death, or to give drugs intended to hasten death in cases of incompetent patients who requested this through an advance directive, irrespective of life expectancy. These low figures were also replicated for these specialties in relation to practitioners being willing to hasten a patient’s death on their own initiative. This reflects expected low levels of support in these groups for active euthanasia, either voluntary or non-voluntary,28 but the differences within each of these groups in relation to practitioners’ willingness to initiate different processes which lead to death is important. While actions traditionally perceived as direct hastening of death are avoided by these groups for all patients, other actions with the same result but purportedly with different intentions (eg, terminal sedation) would sometimes be taken without reference to competent patients.

Obstetricians/gynaecologists and anaesthetists were the strongest supporters of providing terminal sedation and euthanasia to competent patients at their request, or to incompetent patients who had requested these in an advance directive, and to incompetent patients if requested by relatives. They were also the most supportive of physician-assisted suicide. However, some groups — anaesthetists and surgeons — showed some propensity to initiate euthanasia in Case 1. As indicated above, it is possible that this could reflect the idea of broaching the subject of euthanasia, rather than unilateral action to cause death.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that perceptions concerning the causation of death as well as aspects of medical culture influence attitudes towards medical decisions at the end of life. The relief of suffering is important to all specialties, and a quarter of respondents were prepared to offer terminal sedation to competent patients with poorly controlled pain and a poor prognosis. However, the specialties which are most closely involved in caring for patients nearing death — oncology, palliative care and geriatrics —were less likely to act in ways that might be perceived as actively hastening death, and more likely to act in ways which may be understood as fulfilling the duty to relieve symptoms as a medical necessity.

Since euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are unlawful in Australia, the approach by these three specialties could be interpreted simply as being more consistent with the existing legal climate. However, as the same groups are more prone to unilateral decision making, sometimes without reference to competent patients, their avoidance of active hastening of death could also reflect a generally weaker recognition of patients’ wishes.

Our findings point to the need to include decision-making theory and practice within medical ethics curricula, and to facilitate more discussion between specialties about medical decisions at the end of life. In addition, further collaborative research on the attitudes of patients, carers and the general community to medical end-of-life decisions would provide useful comparative perspectives between the attitudes of physicians and those of the communities in which they practise.

1 Hypothetical cases, specified actions and conditions

Each case relates to a 71-year-old patient with extensive brain and bone metastases who has undergone burdensome chemotherapy twice.

  • Case 1: The patient is clear-headed and can still communicate well. You estimate the patient’s life expectancy to be no more than 2 weeks. The patient has pain that is difficult to control, despite the use of analgesics in high doses.

  • Case 2: The patient is clear-headed and can still communicate well. You estimate the patient’s life expectancy to be at least 3 months. Pain can be adequately controlled, but the patient is extremely tired, short of breath and bedridden.

  • Case 3: The patient is drowsy or subcomatose and communication is not possible. You estimate the patient’s life expectancy to be no more than 2 weeks. Pain can be adequately controlled, but the patient is extremely tired, short of breath and bedridden.

  • Case 4: The patient is drowsy or subcomatose and communication is not possible. You estimate the patient’s life expectancy to be at least 3 months. The patient has pain that is difficult to control, despite the use of analgesics in high doses.

Specified actions

  • Would you intensify the alleviation of symptoms by using drugs, taking into account the probability or certainty that this could hasten the end of the patient’s life?

  • Would you give drugs, such as benzodiazepines or barbiturates, to keep the patient in deep sedation until death occurs (referred to henceforth as terminal sedation)?

  • Would you administer drugs with the explicit intention of hastening the patient’s end of life?

Conditions under which respondents would take the specified actions

  • If that is what the patient requests (Cases 1 and 2) or requested in an advance directive (Cases 3 and 4).

  • Without first informing the patient (Cases 1 and 2) if that is what the relatives request (all Cases).

  • On your own initiative to reduce suffering.


Response options were on a five-point scale (yes; probably; undecided; probably not; no).

2 Reported clinical specialties of respondents

Specialty

No. on college registers sent questionnaires*

No. of respondents


Anaesthesia

300

170

General practice

300

125

Geriatric medicine

198

121

Intensive care

300

170

Internal medicine

498

111

Neurology

262

111

Obstetrics and gynaecology

300

130

Oncology

198

123

Palliative medicine

28

29

Surgery

300

130

Thoracic medicine

280

147

Other§

na

109

Unknown

na

2

Total

2964

1478


na = not applicable. * Numbers less than 300 are totals in college registers. Included all medical practitioners registered in a number of specialties (eg, general medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, vascular medicine, hypertension medicine). More respondents self-identified with this specialty than were on the college register. § Includes cardiology (27), endocrinology (8), gastroenterology (15), haematology (13), infectious diseases (9), nephrology (12), rheumatology (12) and various other specialties (13). Did not identify a specialty.

3 Range of responses among specialties for three specific actions at the request of relatives

Case

Increasing drug therapy

Providing terminal sedation

Giving drugs to hasten end of patient’s life


1

13% (thoracic medicine) to 24% (surgery)

0 (palliative care) to 12% (O & G)

0 (palliative care) to 4% (internal medicine, other)

2

6% (anaesthesia) to 14% (geriatrics, other)

0 (palliative care) to 7% (general practice)

0 (palliative care, surgery, thoracic medicine) to 2% (geriatrics, other)

3

74% (palliative care) to 90% (intensive care)

37% (palliative care) to 65% (O & G) (χ211, 19.037; P = 0.0604)

4% (palliative care) to 25% (anaesthesia) (χ211, 36.734; P < 0.0001)

4

76% (palliative care) to 91% (geriatrics)

27% (palliative care) to 63% (O & G) (χ211, 42.082; P < 0.0001)

0 (palliative care) to 23% (O & G) (χ211, 42.726; P < 0.0001)


O & G = obstetrics and gynaecology.

4 Percentage (95% CI) of each specialist group answering yes/probably to the specific action of increasing drug therapy with the probability of hastening death

Case 1 


Case 2


Case 3


Case 4


Specialty

No.*

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative


Anaesthesia

168

98.8
(97.2–100.5)

69.5
(62.4–76.6)

94.0
(90.4–97.6)

53.4
(45.6–61.1)

95.9
(92.8–98.9)

80.7
(74.7–86.8)

97.0
(94.5–99.6)

84.3
(78.8–89.9)

General practice

121

95.0
(91.1–99.0)

59.3
(50.3–68.3)

88.4
(82.6–94.2)

38.7
(29.8–47.5)

95.8
(92.2–99.5)

80.8
(73.7–88.0)

97.5
(94.6–100.3)

81.8
(74.8–88.8)

Geriatric medicine

121

96.7
(93.4–99.9)

70.1
(61.7–78.5)

93.4
(88.9–97.9)

58.1
(49.0–67.2)

95.8
(92.2–99.5)

86.7
(80.5–92.8)

96.6
(93.2–99.9)

89.0
(83.3–94.7)

Intensive care

170

100

62.3
(54.8–69.7)

99.4
(98.3–100.6)

52.4
(44.7–60.1)

98.8
(97.1–100.5)

87.4
(82.3–92.5)

98.2
(96.2–100.2)

85.1
(79.7–90.6)

Internal medicine

108

95.3
(91.2–99.4)

64.8
(55.7–74.0)

92.6
(87.6–97.6)

50.0
(40.4–59.6)

93.4
(88.6–98.2)

89.9
(84.2–95.7)

93.5
(88.7–98.2)

91.4
(86.0–96.9)

Neurology

110

97.3
(94.2–100.4)

57.0
(47.5–66.5)

92.7
(87.7–97.6)

44.1
(34.3–53.9)

98.2
(95.7–100.7)

74.8
(66.4–83.1)

98.2
(95.7–100.7)

79.6
(71.9–87.3)

Obstetrics and gynaecology

128

99.2
(97.7–100.8)

51.2
(42.2–60.3)

95.3
(91.6–99.0)

31.1
(22.8–39.5)

96.9
(93.8–99.9)

74.6
(66.8–82.4)

96.9
(93.8–99.9)

78.7
(71.3–86.1)

Oncology

118

94.0
(89.6–98.4)

78.8
(71.3–86.3)

83.9
(77.2–90.6)

62.7
(53.9–71.6)

93.2
(88.6–97.8)

91.8
(86.9–96.7)

95.7
(91.9–99.4)

92.4
(87.5–97.2)

Palliative medicine

27

88.5
(75.3–101.6)

61.5
(41.5–81.6)

84.6
(69.8–99.5)

40.7
(20.9–60.5)

88.9
(76.2–101.6)

82.1
(67.0–97.3)

96.2
(88.2–104.1)

80.8
(64.5–97.0)

Surgery

124

96.0
(92.5–99.5)

67.8
(59.3–76.2)

91.1
(86.1–96.2)

50.0
(40.8–59.2)

91.7
(86.8–96.7)

81.8
(74.8–88.8)

94.3
(90.1–98.4)

84.2
(77.5–90.8)

Thoracic medicine

147

99.3
(98.0–100.7)

76.9
(69.9–83.9)

94.6
(90.8–98.3)

59.0
(50.9–67.2)

97.2
(94.5–99.9)

90.3
(85.5–95.2)

96.6
(93.5–99.6)

88.4
(83.1–93.6)

Other

107

99.1
(97.2–100.9)

76.0
(67.6–84.3)

93.5
(88.7–98.2)

57.3
(47.6–67.0)

96.3
(92.7–99.9)

86.8
(80.2–93.3)

97.2
(94.1–100.4)

88.7
(82.5–94.8)

Total

1449

97.4
(96.5–98.2)

66.7
(64.2–69.1)

92.8
(91.5–94.1)

50.7
(48.1–53.3)

95.8
(94.7–96.8)

84.2
(82.3–86.1)

96.6
(95.6–97.5)

85.6
(83.8–87.4)


χ211

29.774

42.178

34.132

44.279

18.007

33.288

8.228

20.294

P

0.0017

< 0.0001

0.0003

< 0.0001

0.0814

0.0004

0.6927

0.0414


* Maximum number of respondents for any Case or condition. Current request for Cases 1 and 2 and by advance directive for Cases 3 and 4.

5 Percentage (95% CI) of each specialist group answering yes/probably to the specific action of providing terminal sedation

Case 1 


Case 2


Case 3


Case 4


Specialty

No.*

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative

Patient’s request

Own initiative


Anaesthesia

169

60.7
(53.3–68.2)

22.7
(16.2–29.2)

40.8
(33.3–48.3)

13.6
(8.2–18.9)

66.7
(59.5–73.9)

42.4
(34.8–50.0)

65.1
(57.8–72.3)

38.0
(30.5–45.4)

General practice

123

66.7
(58.2–75.1)

22.9
(15.2–30.6)

40.2
(31.3–49.0)

16.1
(9.4–22.8)

77.5
(69.9–85.1)

60.2
(51.2–69.1)

77.5
(69.9–85.1)

54.9
(46.0–63.9)

Geriatric medicine

119

50.4
(41.3–59.5)

21.0
(13.6–28.4)

22.0
(14.4–29.6)

6.8
(2.2–11.5)

59.0
(49.9–68.0)

42.9
(33.8–51.9)

54.3
(45.1–63.5)

42.4
(33.3–51.4)

Intensive care

170

56.5
(48.9–64.0)

21.1
(14.8–27.4)

34.1
(26.9–41.3)

10.7
(6.0–15.4)

58.1
(50.5–65.6)

42.4
(34.8–50.0)

52.7
(45.1–60.3)

38.2
(30.7–45.7)

Internal medicine

109

53.7
(44.1–63.3)

29.9
(21.1–38.7)

36.7
(27.5–45.9)

13.0
(6.5–19.4)

72.0
(63.3–80.6)

53.8
(44.1–63.4)

63.6
(54.3–72.8)

48.1
(38.6–57.7)

Neurology

111

55.9
(46.5–65.2)

22.4
(14.4–30.5)

27.9
(19.5–36.4)

7.5
(2.4–12.7)

66.7
(57.8–75.6)

44.4
(34.9–54.0)

58.6
(49.3–67.9)

39.8
(30.4–49.2)

Obstetrics and gynaecology

127

77.0
(69.5–84.4)

25.4
(17.6–33.2)

55.6
(46.8–64.4)

14.9
(8.4–21.3)

84.3
(77.8–90.7)

53.3
(44.3–62.3)

83.5
(76.9–90.0)

55.7
(46.8–64.7)

Oncology

121

55.5
(46.4–64.5)

34.8
(25.9–43.6)

21.7
(14.2–29.1)

14.8
(8.2–21.4)

62.5
(53.7–71.3)

61.2
(52.3–70.0)

54.7
(45.5–63.9)

52.6
(43.4–61.8)

Palliative medicine

29

53.6
(33.9–73.3)

37.9
(19.1–56.7)

28.6
(10.7–46.5)

20.7
(5.0–36.4)

59.3
(39.5–79.1)

51.9
(31.7–72.0)

50.0
(29.4–70.6)

37.0
(17.6–56.5)

Surgery

125

61.8
(53.1–70.5)

28.1
(20.0–36.2)

37.6
(29.0–46.2)

11.0
(5.3–16.7)

68.0
(59.6–76.4)

52.9
(43.9–61.9)

59.8
(51.0–68.7)

46.3
(37.4–55.3)

Thoracic medicine

146

58.6
(50.5–66.7)

30.3
(22.8–37.9)

33.8
(26.0–41.6)

15.3
(9.3–21.2)

65.1
(57.2–72.9)

57.2
(49.1–65.4)

50.0
(41.7–58.3)

39.3
(31.3–47.4)

Other

108

56.5
(47.0–66.0)

28.8
(20.0–37.7)

38.9
(29.5–48.2)

11.5
(5.3–17.8)

70.4
(61.6–79.1)

54.7
(45.1–64.3)

58.9
(49.4–68.4)

45.7
(36.0–55.4)

Total

1457

59.4
(56.9–61.9)

26.1
(23.8–28.4)

35.5
(33.0–38.0)

12.6
(10.8–14.3)

67.6
(65.2–70.1)

50.9
(48.3–53.5)

61.3
(58.7–63.8)

44.8
(42.2–47.4)


χ211

27.450

15.556

49.310

12.134

36.489

27.296

60.526

24.296

P

0.0039

0.1584

< 0.0001

0.3536

< 0.0001

0.0041

< 0.0001

0.0115


* Maximum number of respondents for any Case or condition. Current request for Cases 1 and 2 and by advance directive for Cases 3 and 4.

6 Percentage (95% CI) of each specialist group answering yes/probably to the specific action of giving drugs to hasten the end of a patient’s life

Case 1 


Case 2


Case 3


Case 4


Specialty

No.*

Patient’s request

Own initiative    

Patient’s request

Own initiative    

Patient’s request

Own initiative    

Patient’s request

Own initiative    


Anaesthesia

169

31.7
(24.6–38.9)

13.9
(8.6–19.3)

28.6
(21.7–35.5)

6.1
(2.4–9.9)

35.5
(28.2–42.8)

24.1
(17.5–30.7)

35.3
(28.0–42.7)

25.1
(18.5–31.8)

General
practice

123

22.8
(15.2–30.3)

3.4
(0.1–6.7)

16.4
(9.7–23.1)

2.6
(0.3 to 5.5)

29.4
(21.1–37.7)

18.0
(11.1–25.0)

25.8
(17.9–33.8)

12.3
(6.4–18.2)

Geriatric
medicine

120

11.8
(5.9–17.6)

5.9
(1.6–10.2)

5.8
(1.6–10.1)

0.8
( 0.8 to 2.5)

7.6
(2.7–12.4)

7.6
(2.7–12.4)

7.7
(2.8–12.6)

9.2
(4.0–14.5)

Intensive
care

169

18.3
(12.4–24.2)

5.9
(2.3–9.5)

14.3
(8.9–19.6)

2.4
(0.1–4.7)

19.2
(13.1– 25.2)

11.5
(6.6–16.4)

18.9
(13.0–24.9)

10.8
(6.1–15.6)

Internal
medicine

111

17.1
(10.0–24.2)

11.1
(5.1–17.1)

12.7
(6.4–19.1)

3.7
(0.1–7.4)

23.1
(15.1–31.2)

18.3
(11.0–25.7)

22.2
(14.3–30.2)

13.8
(7.2–20.3)

Neurology

111

27.0
(18.6–35.4)

11.3
(5.2–17.5)

15.5
(8.6–22.3)

2.9
(0.4 to 6.2)

24.3
(16.2–32.4)

16.7
(9.5–23.8)

23.4
(15.4–31.4)

14.8
(8.0–21.6)

Obstetrics and
gynaecology

127

29.9
(21.8–38.0)

7.3
(2.6–12.0)

23.6
(16.1–31.1)

6.6
(2.1–11.0)

33.1
(24.8–41.4)

20.0
(12.7–27.3)

32.3
(24.0–40.5)

22.8
(15.2–30.3)

Oncology

122

3.3
(0.1–6.5)

4.2
(0.5–7.9)

2.5
(0.3 to 5.3)

0.8
( 0.8 to 2.5)

8.3
(3.3–13.2)

8.2
(3.3–13.1)

9.4
(4.0–14.8)

5.2
(1.1–9.3)

Palliative
medicine

29

3.6
(3.8 to 10.9)

3.4
(3.6 to 10.5)

3.6
( 3.8 to 10.9)

3.6
( 3.8 to 10.9)

7.4
( 3.2 to 18.0)

7.1
( 3.0 to 17.3)

7.4
( 3.2 to 18.0)

3.6
(3.8 to 10.9)

Surgery

125

24.4
(16.7–32.1)

13.6
(7.3–19.8)

8.8
(3.8–13.8)

6.8
(2.2–11.4)

24.2
(16.6–31.8)

17.1
(10.2–24.0)

24.0
(16.4–31.6)

17.6
(10.7–24.6)

Thoracic
medicine

146

16.4
(10.4–22.5)

6.3
(2.2–10.3)

10.3
(5.3–15.3)

4.1
(0.9–7.4)

21.2
(14.5–27.9)

16.6
(10.4–22.7)

16.7
(10.5–22.8)

7.7
(3.3–12.1)

Other

108

24.3
(16.0–32.6)

10.5
(4.5–16.4)

13.9
(7.3–20.5)

5.8
(1.2–10.3)

25.2
(16.9–33.6)

20.6
(12.8–28.3)

27.1
(18.5–35.7)

22.2
(14.3–30.2)

Total

1460

20.5
(18.4–22.6)

8.4
(6.9–9.8)

14.1
(12.3
15.9)

3.9
(2.9–4.9)

22.8
(20.7–25.0)

16.1
(14.2–18.0)

22.1
(20.0–24.2)

14.6
(12.7–16.4)


χ211

60.648

24.357

66.885

15.882

61.953

27.947

59.437

49.170

P

< 0.0001

0.0113

< 0.0001

0.1455

< 0.0001

0.0032

< 0.0001

< 0.0001


* Maximum number of respondents for any Case or condition. Current request for Cases 1 and 2 and by advance directive for Cases 3 and 4.

7 Percentage of each specialist group answering yes/probably to the question on physician-assisted suicide*

Specialty

No. of respondents

Case 1

Case 2


Anaesthesia

169

25%

22%

General practice

121

18%

12%

Geriatric medicine

120

2%

1%

Intensive care

166

16%

11%

Internal medicine

111

14%

10%

Neurology

109

15%

10%

Obstetrics and gynaecology

126

21%

20%

Oncology

121

1%

1%

Palliative medicine

29

10%

7%

Surgery

127

15%

9%

Thoracic medicine

146

6%

3%

Other

107

14%

8%

Total

1452

13%

10%


χ211

67.509

70.788

P

< 0.001

< 0.001


* Applicable only to competent patients (Cases 1 and 2).

Received 22 August 2007, accepted 13 December 2007

  • Malcolm H Parker1
  • Colleen M Cartwright2
  • Gail M Williams1

  • 1 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.
  • 2 Aged Services Learning and Research Collaboration, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW.

Correspondence: m.parker@uq.edu.au

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Cartwright CM, Williams GM, Steinberg MA. Attitudes behind the attitudes to euthanasia. Report to the National Health and Medical Research Council. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2002.
  • 2. Douglas CD, Kerridge IH, Rainbird KJ, et al. The intention to hasten death: a survey of attitudes and practices of surgeons in Australia. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 511-515. <MJA full text>
  • 3. Deliens L, Mortimer F, Blisen J, et al. End-of-life decisions in medical practice in Flanders, Belgium: a nationwide survey. Lancet 2000; 356: 1806-1811.
  • 4. Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Heide A, Koper D, et al. Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001. Lancet 2003; 362: 395-399.
  • 5. van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, Haverkate I, et al. Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1706-1711.
  • 6. Asch DA, Faber-Langedon K, Shea JA, et al. The sequence of withdrawing life-sustaining treatments from patients. Am J Med 1999; 107: 153-156.
  • 7. Teno JM. End-of-life decision-making: from whether to when. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, et al, editors. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of end-of-life decision-making. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2001: 55-63.
  • 8. Bascom PB, Tolle SW. Responding to requests for physician-assisted suicide: “These are uncharted waters for both of us...”. JAMA 2002; 288: 91-98.
  • 9. Emanuel EJ. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a review of the empirical data from the United States. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 142-150.
  • 10. Dickinson G, Lancaster C, Clark D, et al. UK physicians’ attitudes toward active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Death Stud 2002; 26: 479-490.
  • 11. van der Heide A. Non-treatment decisions in Dutch medical practice; 2001: 15, part 1. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, et al, editors. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of end-of-life decision-making. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2001.
  • 12. van der Heide A, Deliens L, Faisst K, et al. End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study. Lancet 2003; 362: 345-350.
  • 13. Buchan ML, Tolle SW. Pain relief for dying persons: dealing with physicians’ fears and concerns. J Clin Ethics 1995; 6: 53-61.
  • 14. Tweedale MG. Grasping the nettle — what to do when patients withdraw their consent for treatment: (a clinical perspective on the case of Ms B). J Med Ethics 2002; 28: 236-237.
  • 15. Hakim RB, Teno JM, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Factors associated with do-not-resuscitate orders: patients’ preferences, prognoses, and physicians’ judgments. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 284-293.
  • 16. Cartwright CM, Robinson GW, Steinberg MA, et al. End-of-life decision-making. Perspectives of Northern Territory doctors, nurses and community members. Darwin: University of Queensland, Northern Territory University, 1998.
  • 17. Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Clarridge BR, et al. Attitudes and practices of US oncologists regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 527-532.
  • 18. Mortier F, Bilsen J, Vander Stichele H, et al. Attitudes, sociodemographic characteristics and actual end-of-life decisions of physicians in Flanders, Belgium. Med Decis Making 2003; 23: 502-510.
  • 19. Steinberg MA, Cartwright CM, Najman JM, et al. Healthy ageing, healthy dying: community and health professional perspectives on end-of-life decision-making. Report to the Research and Development Grants Advisory Committee (RADGAC) of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, February. Canberra: Commonwealth Government, 1996.
  • 20. Nilstun T, Lofmark R, Melltorp G, et al. Forgoing life-prolonging treatment in Sweden: attitudes, practices and methodological issues. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, et al, editors. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of end-of-life decision-making. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2001: 65-76.
  • 21. Willems DL, Groenewoud J, van der Wal G, et al. Giving opioids with a potentially life-shortening effect: experiences and perceptions of Dutch physicians. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, et al, editors. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of end-of-life decision-making. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2001: 163-174.
  • 22. Craig GM. On withholding nutrition and hydration in the terminally ill: has palliative medicine gone too far? J Med Ethics 1994; 20: 139-143.
  • 23. Ganzini L, Nelson HD, Schmidt TA, et al. Physicians’ experiences with thl N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 557-563.
  • 24. Jeffrey D. The ethics of palliative care: European perspectives [book review]. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: e9.
  • 25. Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Fischer S, Cartwright C, et al. End-of-life decision-making in Europe and Australia: a physician study. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 921-929.
  • 26. Lofmark R, Mortier F, Nilstun T, et al. Palliative care training: a survey among physicians in Australia and Europe. J Palliat Care 2006; 22: 105-110.
  • 27. Miccinesi G, Fischer S, Paci E, et al. Physicians’ attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: a comparison between seven countries. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 1961-1974.
  • 28. Marini MC, Neuenschwander H, Stiefel F. Attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a survey among medical students, oncology clinicians and palliative care specialists. Palliat Support Care 2006; 4: 251-255.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.