a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“Of the 1355 eligible physicians who received our questionnaire, 938 (69 percent) responded. Forty-eight percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that euthanasia is never ethically justified, and 42 percent disagreed. Fifty-four percent thought euthanasia should be legal in some situations, but only 33 percent stated that they would be willing to perform euthanasia. Thirty-nine percent of respondents agreed with the statement that physician-assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and 50 percent disagreed. Fifty-three percent thought assisted suicide should be legal in some situations, but only 40 percent stated that they would be willing to assist a patient in committing suicide. Of the groups surveyed, hematologists and oncologists were most likely to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, and psychiatrists were most likely to support these practices. "


Why do you guys think oncologists were the most likely to oppose euthanasia and psychiatrists most like to support it?

Oncologists deal with people who are very sick and terminally sick all the time. I guess they think they can help the pts enough such that they wouldn't want to be euthanized.

a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“Of the 1355 eligible physicians who received our questionnaire, 938 (69 percent) responded. Forty-eight percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that euthanasia is never ethically justified, and 42 percent disagreed. Fifty-four percent thought euthanasia should be legal in some situations, but only 33 percent stated that they would be willing to perform euthanasia. Thirty-nine percent of respondents agreed with the statement that physician-assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and 50 percent disagreed. Fifty-three percent thought assisted suicide should be legal in some situations, but only 40 percent stated that they would be willing to assist a patient in committing suicide. Of the groups surveyed, hematologists and oncologists were most likely to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, and psychiatrists were most likely to support these practices. "


Why do you guys think oncologists were the most likely to oppose euthanasia and psychiatrists most like to support it?
I would bet that psychiatrists are definitely more sympathetic than many others to arguments that rely on quality of life issues. I am not a psychiatrist, tho I have a degree in psychology, and am considering psychiatry as an area to specialize in. I support both limited euthanasia and assisted suicide. People who oppose those issues are usually persuaded by religious arguments or arguments that rely on the identification of human life with mere biological life. Perhaps oncologists consider mere biological life to be survival? Alternatively, my ethics professor always said, "Follow the money trail." Oncologists deal with very sick people who undergo very expensive treatments. Many of them die, and many are in pain. Giving them the option to choose an early exit rather than hanging on, chewing up resources and running up huge bills is just unnatractive, financially. Hopefully they are merely acting out of genuine moral concern. The simplest answer of all is that perhaps oncologists are more religiously conservative than psychiatrists. Differneces in gender and political ideology exist between disciplines, why not religion?

Why do you guys think oncologists were the most likely to oppose euthanasia and psychiatrists most like to support it?

Not sure about the psychiatrists, but there is this old joke:

Q: Why do they nail coffins shut?

A: To keep out the oncologists.

Not sure about the psychiatrists, but there is this old joke:

Q: Why do they nail coffins shut?

A: To keep out the oncologists.
:laugh: That's so wrong.....

But personally I have no problem with any adult who wishes to choose their manner of death or the timing of it- so long as it harms no one else. The only reason at this point I would not help someone carry out this act would be the legal ramifications. There is no difference between alleviating pain through this type of act is not much differently than snowing someone out with exceedingly high doses of narcotics.

For the life of me, I will never understand why we are all for putting our pets to sleep when they are in pain, but we let our family members suffer? I agree with Praetorian, people should be allowed to choose their manner and time of death. Or in the case where all hope is lost and the individual is not able to make a decision for themselves, as it was in that hospital in New Orleans that's receiving all the latest press, that a physician should have the right to end her patients suffering.

Just to venture slightly from the euthanasia theme, my dad read a great obituary in the local paper the other day... It was for an 80-something year old woman who was dissatisfied with life in a retirement home, and sensing that her health was declining, "denied all food and water, except for the occasional sip of champagne for the last two weeks of her life.... and who considered her own death to be among the greatest of her achievements." That's what you call death with dignity, or as I would say, "going out on top". I hope I'm just as ballsy as that lady when I grow up. :thumbup:

I think it just boils down to civil rights. A person has the right to end their own life, but not the life of others, no matter how merciful it may look, unless it is their wish that has been clearly expressed and they are incapacitated to do it themselves.

I imagine that's the general thought to euthanasia, however personally I have a spiritual reason to be hesitant to support euthanasia.

Oncologists deal with people who are very sick and terminally sick all the time. I guess they think they can help the pts enough such that they wouldn't want to be euthanized.

My experience as an allied health provider is the opposite. The vast majority of people who I know, who have had extensive contact with people at the end of life, favor euthanasia. It has to do with watching mindless suffering and slow, agonizing declines into dementia and multi-system failure.

I'd be curious what ICU nurses think.

My experience as an allied health provider is the opposite. The vast majority of people who I know, who have had extensive contact with people at the end of life, favor euthanasia. It has to do with watching mindless suffering and slow, agonizing declines into dementia and multi-system failure.

I'd be curious what ICU nurses think.

I can see that. I'm not an health care provider, but I volunteer for hospice, and the people at hospice seem very pro-euthansia. Of course, the fact that we're in Oregon where it is legal might play into that. I agree that this is a choice people should be free to make -- control of one's own life is an important inherent right. However, there need to be checks to make sure that the person is getting adequate treatment (including pain treatment!) and I think a mental health evaluation should probably be necessary. If a person with a terminal illness has treatable depression, it's troublesome to let them end their life without having any mental health intervention. Also, hopefully the mental health evaluation would be able to determine whether the euthansia decision is being made by the patient or if the patient's family is strongly encouraging the patient to end her life because she's a burden.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that we should make sure terminal patients are getting proper care instead of just throwing euthansia into the mix without any improvement in current care, which is sort of a duh statement.

My experience as an allied health provider is the opposite. The vast majority of people who I know, who have had extensive contact with people at the end of life, favor euthanasia. It has to do with watching mindless suffering and slow, agonizing declines into dementia and multi-system failure.

I'd be curious what ICU nurses think.
Interesting. Maybe I was thinking that they would be the ones to atleast attempt treatment. Other input would be appreciated.

Not sure about the psychiatrists, but there is this old joke:

Q: Why do they nail coffins shut?

A: To keep out the oncologists.

This is sadly true in most cases of my experience. One of the many reasons oncology isn't on my list of specialties to consider.

And, Brett, most of the ICU nurses I've worked with are pro-euthanasia, with the obvious caveats of appropriate mental health and pain treatments.

Interesting. Maybe I was thinking that they would be the ones to atleast attempt treatment. Other input would be appreciated.

You seem to miss the idea that euthansia is something to be utilized only when treatment has failed and to carry on further is pointless and only prolonging and often worsening suffering. It is not a replacement for treatment. You never seem to miss hitting the nail on the head so I will let this one slide.... ;) :laugh: :thumbup:

I understand. I was trying to offer a reason as to why oncologists were reportedly supported euthanasia the least.

I understand. I was trying to offer a reason as to why oncologists were reportedly supported euthanasia the least.

Could it be a small sample size affecting the results? I mean they only polled less than 1400 physicians, and less than 70% of those responded. Could it be also (or rather) that physicians who are supportive of euthanasia might be less apt to be open about their support than those in allied health fields?