| 1. |
- Cuttini, M, et al.
(author)
-
End-of-life decisions in neonatal intensive care : physicians' selfreported practices in seven European countries
- 2000
-
In: The Lancet. - London. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 355:9221, s. 2112-2118
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe ethical issue of foregoing life-sustaining treatment for newborn infants at high risk of death or severe disability is extensively debated, but there is little information on how physicians in different countries actually confront this issue to reach end-of-life decisions. The EURONIC project aimed to investigate practices as reported by physicians themselves.MethodsThe study recruited a large, representative sample of 122 neonatal intensive-care units (NICUs) by census (in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden) or stratified random sampling (in France, Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain) with an overall response rate of 86%. Physicians' practices of end-of-life decision-making were investigated through an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. 1235 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate 89%).FindingsIn all countries, most physicians reported having been involved at least once in setting limits to intensive care because of incurable conditions (61–96%); smaller proportions reported such involvement because of a baby's poor neurological prognosis (46–90%). Practices such as continuation of current treatment without intensification and withholding of emergency manoeuvres were widespread, but withdrawal of mechanical ventilation was reported by variable proportions (28–90%). Only in France (73%) and the Netherlands (47%) was the administration of drugs with the aim of ending life reported with substantial frequency. Age, length of professional experience, and the importance of religion in the physician's life affected the likelihood of reporting of non-treatment decisions.InterpretationA vast majority of neonatologists in European NICUs have been involved in end-of-life limitation of treatments, but type of decision-making varies among countries. Cultur-related and other country-specific factors are more relevant than characteristics of individual physicians or units in explaining such variability.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cuttini, M., et al.
(author)
-
Should euthanasia be legal? An international survey of neonatal intensive care units staff
- 2004
-
In: Archives of Disease in Childhood. - 0003-9888 .- 1468-2044. ; 89:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To present the views of a representative sample of neonatal doctors and nurses in 10 European countries on the moral acceptability of active euthanasia and its legal regulation. Design: A total of 142 neonatal intensive care units were recruited by census (in the Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary, and the Baltic countries) or random sampling (in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), 1391 doctors and 3410 nurses completed an anonymous questionnaire (response rates 89% and 86% respectively). Main outcome measure: The staff opinion that the law in their country should be changed to allow active euthanasia "more than now". Results: Active euthanasia appeared to be both acceptable and practiced in the Netherlands, France, and to a lesser extent Lithuania, and less acceptable in Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and Spain. More then half (53%) of the doctors in the Netherlands, but only a quarter (24%) in France felt that the law should be changed to allow active euthanasia "more than now". For 40% of French doctors, end of life issues should not be regulated by law. Being male, regular involvement in research, less than six years professional experience, and having ever participated in a decision of active euthanasia were positively associated with an opinion favouring relaxation of legal constraints. Having had children, religiousness, and believing in the absolute value of human life showed a negative association. Nurses were slightly more likely to consider active euthanasia acceptable in selected circumstances, and to feel that the law should be changed to allow it more than now. Conclusions: Opinions of health professionals vary widely between countries, and, even where neonatal euthanasia is already practiced, do not uniformly support its legalisation.
|
|
