Dataset Information

Role and responsibility of oncologists in assisted suicide. Practice and views among members of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology.

ABSTRACT: Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a controversial practice and regulatory frameworks differ regarding assigned physicians' roles. This study explores clinical experience and views of German oncologists concerning ethically and legally relevant aspects of PAS after change of the law. An online survey was conducted among members of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) in March 2021. Descriptive analysis, bivariate and multivariable logistic regression of quantitative data on determinants related to (un)willingness to assist with suicide as well qualitative analysis of free-text comments were carried out. Seven hundred and forty-five of 3588 DGHO members responded (20.8%). Of these, 29.9% reported requests for a lethal drug and 3.0% (n = 22) reported to have assisted with suicide. Almost half of them (47.0%, n = 350) objected to providing PAS, whereas 45.9% indicated a willingness at least under certain conditions. Of those respondents who did not object to PAS, 25.4% would also consider assistance if those willing to die had a psychiatric disease and 10.2% if requestors had no disease at all. A majority viewed a role for physicians regarding different tasks associated with assisted suicide. Respondents with <10 years of professional experience, working in hospital with religious affiliation and with subspecialisation in palliative care were significantly less frequently willing to assist suicide. Respondents are divided in their personal attitudes towards PAS but a majority supports involvement of physicians regarding different tasks related to assisted suicide. Data about the practice and envisaged professional role may inform development of an acceptable ethico-legal framework for a controversial practice.

SUBMITTER: Schildmann J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8666647 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To ascertain attitudes to resourcing, collaboration and publication in toxicology, a survey was developed and distributed to British Toxicology Society (BTS) members. The survey comprised 14 questions with 5 response options (strongly agree; agree; conflicted; disagree; strongly disagree) and a free text box. One hundred completed surveys were received by the cut-off date for data analysis. Unsurprisingly, 60% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that toxicology research is adequately funded in the UK; only 12% agreed with this statement. A similar proportion of participants (53%) disagreed with the statement that funding councils give equal opportunity to toxicology whereas 31% were conflicted on this point. An overwhelming 97% of respondents agreed that collaboration is important in driving toxicology research whereas only 38% agreed that competition is important. When this question was broadened out beyond the discipline of toxicology, a similar profile was seen suggesting that participants held similar views on toxicology versus other types of research. Many respondents were conflicted regarding the role of competition both in toxicology and in other research disciplines. Free text comments suggested that some competition is good to drive quality but can be counterproductive when competing for limited resources. Most participants were in favour of making toxicology research data openly available (86%) and in favour of open access publication (89%) although there were reservations about the cost of open access. Many (60%) thought the current system of peer review is fair but 65% also supported the idea of double-blind peer review (where both reviewer and author are anonymized). Others suggested a step in the opposite direction towards increased transparency (revealing and holding reviewers to account) would be preferable. Overall, there was a broad theme in free text responses that the need for experienced toxicologists has increased at a time when training and investment in the discipline has declined. However, not all respondents held that view with some noting that toxicology both as a research and as an applied discipline is strong within the UK scientific community.

Project description:PurposeTo assess US radiation oncologists' views on practice scope and the ideal role of the radiation oncologist (RO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) conducted a scope of practice survey.Methods and materialsIn spring 2019, ASTRO distributed an online survey to 3822 US RO members. The survey generated 984 complete responses (26% response rate) for analysis. Face validity testing confirmed respondents were representative of ASTRO's RO membership.ResultsNearly all respondents agreed that "ROs should be leaders in oncologic care." Respondents indicated the ideal approach to patient care was to provide "an independent opinion on radiation therapy and other treatment options" (82.5%) or "an independent opinion on radiation therapy but not outside of it" (16.1%), with only 1.4% favoring provision of "radiation therapy at the request of the referring physician" as the ideal approach. Actual practice fully matched the ideal approach in 18.2% of respondents. For the remaining majority, actual practice did not always match the ideal and comprised a mix of approaches that included providing radiation at the referring physician's request 24.0% of the time on average. Reasons for the mismatch included fear of alienating referring physicians and concern for offering an unwelcome opinion. One-fifth of respondents expressed a desire to expand the scope of service though interspecialty politics and insufficient training were potential barriers. Respondents interested in expanding scope of practice were on average earlier in their career (average years in practice 13.3) than those who were not interested (average years in practice 17.2, P < .001). Radiopharmaceuticals administration, medical marijuana and anticancer medications prescribing, and RO inpatient service represented areas of interest for expansion but also knowledge gaps.ConclusionsThese results provide insight regarding US ROs' scope of practice and attitudes on the ideal role of the RO. For most ROs, to provide an independent opinion on treatment options represented the ideal approach to care, but barriers such as concern of alienating referring physicians prevented many from fully adhering to their ideal in practice. Actual practice commonly comprised a mixed approach, including the least favored scenario of delivering radiation at the referring physician's request one-quarter of the time, highlighting the influence of interspecialty politics on practice behavior. Advocacy for open communication and meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration presents an actionable solution toward a more balanced relationship with other specialties as ROs strive to better fulfill the vision of being leaders in oncologic care and being our best for our patients. The study also identified interest in expanding into nontraditional domains that offer opportunities to address unmet needs in the cancer patient's journey and elevate radiation oncology within the increasingly value-based US health care system.

Project description:BackgroundOne in 2 people born in the UK after 1960 are expected to require oncology input in their lifetime. However, only 36% of UK medical schools provide dedicated oncology placements and teaching indicating a discordance between public health impact and training. We designed a UK-wide survey to capture medical students' views on current oncology teaching and the potential role of a national undergraduate oncology symposium as an educational, networking and motivational tool.MethodsWe undertook a national cross-sectional survey of UK medical students' views in oncology and satisfaction with teaching using pre-designed questionnaires. We also distributed a dedicated survey (pre and post-conference) to compare medical students' motivation towards a career in oncology after attending the national symposium. This study was prospectively approved by QMUL Ethics Committee (Reference number QMREC2348). Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS and GraphPad software.ResultsThe national survey was completed by 166 students representing 22 UK medical schools. Students reported limited interest, knowledge and exposure to oncology, lack of confidence in skills, and teaching dissatisfaction. Oncology was perceived as a challenging specialty (mean 4.5/5 ± 0.7), yet most students estimate receiving only 1-2 weeks of dedicated oncology teaching. The national symposium generated a statically significant increase in students' interest, knowledge, and confidence in skills surrounding oncology, improving students' perceived ability to cope with the emotional challenges in this field.ConclusionStudents' views towards oncology alongside their teaching dissatisfaction underpin the need to revisit and strive to improve current undergraduate oncology curricula. Increasing medical student oncology exposure by proposing outcome-based guidelines and adopting a standardised undergraduate oncology curriculum should be the foremost priority in inspiring future oncologists to ensure excellent cancer patient care.

Project description:Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFI), in particular those with haematological malignancies undergoing remission-induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). Despite the development of new treatment options in the past decades, IFI remains a concern due to substantial morbidity and mortality in these patient populations. In addition, the increasing use of new immune modulating drugs in cancer therapy has opened an entirely new spectrum of at risk periods. Since the last edition of antifungal prophylaxis recommendations of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology in 2014, seven clinical trials regarding antifungal prophylaxis in patients with haematological malignancies have been published, comprising 1227 patients. This update assesses the impact of this additional evidence and effective revisions. Our key recommendations are the following: prophylaxis should be performed with posaconazole delayed release tablets during remission induction chemotherapy for AML and MDS (AI). Posaconazole iv can be used when the oral route is contraindicated or not feasible. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B did not significantly decrease IFI rates in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) patients during induction chemotherapy, and there is poor evidence to recommend it for prophylaxis in these patients (CI). Despite substantial risk of IFI, we cannot provide a stronger recommendation for these patients. There is poor evidence regarding voriconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia (CII). Therapeutic drug monitoring TDM should be performed within 2 to 5 days of initiating voriconazole prophylaxis and should be repeated in case of suspicious adverse events or of dose changes of interacting drugs (BIItu). General TDM during posaconazole prophylaxis is not recommended (CIItu), but may be helpful in cases of clinical failure such as breakthrough IFI for verification of compliance or absorption.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.

Project description:BackgroundWomen represent an increasing proportion of the oncology workforce; however, globally this does not translate into leadership roles, reflecting disparities in career opportunities between men and women. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) undertook a survey to investigate gender disparity in the Spanish oncology context.DesignAn online survey was made available to SEOM medical oncologists between February and May 2019. It included demographics, professional context and achievements, parenthood and family conciliation issues, workplace gender bias, and approaches to address disparities.ResultsOf the 316 eligible respondents, 71.5% were women, 59.5% were aged 45 or younger, and 66.1% had children. Among women, 12.4% were division or unit heads, compared with 45.5% of men, with most women (74.3%) being attending medical oncologists, compared with 45.5% of men. More males were professors (34.4% versus 14.2% of females), had a PhD (46.7% versus 28.8%), and/or had led clinical research groups (41.1% versus 9.7%). Spending time overseas after completing a residency was also more common for men than women (34.4% versus 20.4%). Professional satisfaction was similar between genders, driven primarily by patient care and intellectual stimulation. More women (40.7%) considered parenthood to have a strong negative impact on their career, compared with men (9.0%). Main perceived barriers to gender equality included a lack of work-life balance (72.6% women, 44.4% men), bias of peers and superiors (50.0% women, 18.9% men), and different career goals (41.2% women, 24.4% men). Preferred solutions included educational programs and scholarships (52.9%), communication and leadership training (35.8%), childcare at conferences (33.2%), and postmaternity return-to-work incentives (32.0%).ConclusionThere is a clear paucity of equal opportunities for female oncologists in Spain. This can be addressed by encouraging professional development and merit recognition particularly for younger female oncologists, and empowering women to be involved in management and leadership of institutions and professional societies.

Dataset Information

Role and responsibility of oncologists in assisted suicide. Practice and views among members of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets