This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1049909107310141v1 25/2/112    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Curlin, F. A. Articles by Lantos, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Curlin, F. A. Articles by Lantos, J. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support

Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Universtiy of Chicago, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Chicago, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, fcurlin{at}uchicago.edu

Chinyere Nwodim, BA

Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago

Jennifer L. Vance, MA

Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Universtiy of Chicago

Marshall H. Chin, MD, MPH

Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Universtiy of Chicago, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Chicago, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago

John D. Lantos, MD

Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Chicago, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Department of Pediatrics, Section of General Pediatrics The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

This study analyzes data from a national survey to estimate the proportion of physicians who currently object to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), terminal sedation (TS), and withdrawal of artificial life support (WLS), and to examine associations between such objections and physician ethnicity, religious characteristics, and experience caring for dying patients. Overall, 69% of the US physicians object to PAS, 18% to TS, and 5% to WLS. Highly religious physicians are more likely than those with low religiosity to object to both PAS (84% vs 55%, P < .001) and TS (25% vs 12%, P < .001). Objection to PAS or TS is also associated with being of Asian ethnicity, of Hindu religious affiliation, and having more experience caring for dying patients. These findings suggest that, with respect to morally contested interventions at the end of life, the medical care patients receive will vary based on their physicians' religious characteristics, ethnicity, and experience caring for dying patients.

Key Words: religion • ethics • physician-assisted suicide • terminal sedation • withdrawal of life support • ethnicity

This version was published on May 1, 2008

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, Vol. 25, No. 2, 112-120 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1049909107310141


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. E. Quill, B. Lo, D. W. Brock, and A. Meisel Last-Resort Options for Palliative Sedation Ann Intern Med, September 15, 2009; 151(6): 421 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Sulmasy Spirituality, Religion, and Clinical Care Chest, June 1, 2009; 135(6): 1634 - 1642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]