ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To study the willingness of Dutch physicians to use potentially life-shortening or lethal drugs for severely ill children. STUDY DESIGN: We asked 63 pediatricians about their approach to 10 hypothetical cases of children with cancer. The age of the child (15, 11, or 6 years), the child's (explicit) request, and the opinion of the parents varied. Two hypothetical cases were also presented to 125 general practitioners and 208 clinical specialists. RESULTS: Most pediatricians were willing to increase morphine in all cases. A total of 48% to 60% of pediatricians were willing to use lethal drugs in children at the child's request, when the parents agreed; when parents requested ending of life of their unconscious child, 37% to 42% of pediatricians were willing; 13% to 28% of pediatricians were willing when parents did not agree with their child's request. General practitioners and clinical specialists were as willing as pediatricians to use lethal drugs at the child's request, but less willing to grant a request of parents for their unconscious child. CONCLUSIONS: Many Dutch pediatricians are willing to use potentially life-shortening or lethal drugs for children. The legal limit of 12 years, as the age under which voluntary euthanasia is forbidden, is not fully supported by Dutch physicians.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Euthanasia/psychology , Morphine/administration & dosage , Neoplasms/psychology , Parents/psychology , Pediatrics , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Euthanasia/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/classification , Netherlands , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
The achievements of modern medicine are manifold and impressive. However, there is a broad recognition of the fact that continuing medical treatment is not always beneficial to the patient, nor is it always what the patient wants. This has led to a debate about the way physicians may or may not be involved in the end of life of patients. Could there be a justification for the active ending of a patient's life? This debate has a global character. In this article we will explore this debate for developing countries; we will focus on physician-assisted death (PAD) in Latin American countries. At stake is the moral relevance of differences, not the moral justification of PAD per se. We argue that arguments for PAD apply equally in affluent and in developing countries. Some of the counterarguments, however, would seem to hold more in developing countries than in affluent countries. Yet, under certain conditions, a policy tolerating PAD would be as acceptable in developing countries as in developed countries.