The acceptability among young Hindus and Muslims of actively ending the lives of newborns with genetic defects

A Dialogue between Hindu and Catholic Perspectives in Taking Care of Newborns at their End-of-Life

Hinduism is considered one of the most ancient religions in the world. Although the technological innovation of modernization has undermined the reliance on their traditions, Hindus may still rely on Hindu Scripture when making decisions. From their standpoint, contrary to Western medicine, human lives cannot be reduced to statistical and empirical facts. They focus more on preserving the spirit, rather than considering survival as one of the goals of medicine. Consequently, when a preterm infant is born, Hindu parents might struggle to understand the goals of Western neonatologists. This divergence may create misunderstandings when discussing end-of-life decisions. Since they value relational aspects to be of utmost importance, they may accept treatments only in the likelihood of good neurological outcomes. Being able to interact allows Hindus to act virtuously with the aim of purifying their soul toward moksa. When it comes to end-of-life decisions on behalf of newborns, Hindu parents may opt to forgo treatments and let the baby peacefully die, while praying for their soul to have a better rebirth. This paper aims to evaluate quality-of-life assessment in the Hindu tradition in comparison with the Catholic tradition. It draws parallelisms between these two different religions to investigate whether an inter-religious dialogue is possible. This work will help Catholic, and more broadly Western, doctors to have a better understanding of the Hindu end-of-life views.

Spiritual and cultural influences on end-of-life care and decision-making in NICU

Understanding and respecting the spiritual beliefs, ethnic roots, cultural norms and customs of individual families is essential for neonatologists to provide clinically appropriate and humane end-of-life care. This review describes the religious/philosophical principles, cultural-related practices/rituals, and traditions in end-of-life care in major spiritual groups of today's multi-cultural, multi-faith societies. The spiritual groups include Christians, Muslims, Jewish Judaism believers and Asian religious/philosophy followers such as Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Confucianism devotees and ancestral worshippers. It is vital to understand that substantial variation in views and practices may exist even within the same religion and culture in different geographic locations. Ethical views and cultural practices are not static elements in life but behave in a fluidic and dynamic manner that could change with time. Interestingly, an evolving pattern has been observed in some Asian and Middle East countries that more parents and/or religious groups are beginning to accept a form of redirection of care most compatible with their spiritual belief and culture. Thus, every family must be assessed and counseled individually for end-of-life decision-making. Also, every effort should be made to comply with parents' requests and to treat infants/parents of different religions and cultures with utmost dignity so that they have no regret for their irreversible decisions.

The Islamic perspective on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia can be debated from ethical and legal perspectives, and there are a variety of views regarding their acceptability and usefulness. Religion is considered an important factor in determining attitudes towards such practices. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of the Islamic perspective on PAS and euthanasia and explore the Islamic approach in addressing the related issues. The PubMed database was searched to retrieve relevant articles, then the references listed in the selected articles were checked for additional relevant publications. Additionally, religious books (Quran and hadith) and legal codes of selected countries were also consulted from appropriate websites. The Islamic code of law discusses many issues regarding life and death, as it considers any act of taking one's life to be forbidden. Islam sanctifies life and depicts it as a gift from God (Allah). It consistently emphasises the importance of preserving life and well-being. Therefore Muslims, the followers of Islam, have no right to end their life. All Islamic doctrines consider PAS and euthanasia to be forbidden. However, if the patient has an imminently fatal illness, withholding or withdrawing a futile medical treatment is considered permissible. From a legal perspective, Islamic countries have not legalised PAS and euthanasia. Such practices are therefore considered suicides when patients consent to the procedure, and homicides when physicians execute the procedure.

Duty to provide care to Ebola patients: the perspectives of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers

AIM

To examine the views of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding the acceptability of HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients.

METHOD

From October to December 2015, lay people (n=252) and HCPs (n=220) in Conakry, Guinea, were presented with 54 sample case scenarios depicting a HCP who refuses to provide care to Ebola patients and were instructed to rate the extent to which this HCP's decision is morally acceptable. The scenarios were composed by systematically varying the levels of four factors: (1) the risk of getting infected, (2) the HCP's working conditions, (3) the HCP's family responsibilities and (4) the HCP's professional status.

RESULTS

Five clusters were identified: (1) 18% of the participants expressed the view that HCPs have an unlimited obligation to provide care to Ebola patients; (2) 38% held that HCPs' duty to care is a function of HCPs' working conditions; (3) 9% based their judgments on a combination of risk level, family responsibilities and working conditions; (4) 23% considered that HCPs do not have an obligation to provide care and (5) 12% did not take a position.

CONCLUSION

Only a small minority of Guinean lay people and HCPs consider that HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients is always unacceptable. The most commonly endorsed position is that HCPs' duty to provide care to Ebola patients is linked to society's reciprocal duty to provide them with the working conditions needed to fulfil their professional duty.

Mapping people's views regarding the acceptability of surrogate motherhood

The aims of the present study were to map French laypersons' views regarding the acceptability of maternal surrogacy and to delineate the circumstances under which surrogacy is considered, by different groups of people, as especially problematic. Participants (N = 236) were presented with a number of scenarios depicting the circumstances in which a couple has contracted with a surrogate mother and were asked to indicate the extent to which such a contract may present a moral problem. The scenarios were created by varying four factors: the type of surrogacy (traditional or gestational), the surrogate mother's level of autonomy, the family context in which the surrogate mother lives, and whether surrogacy was commercial or altruistic. Three qualitatively different personal positions were found: (a) a majority group for which surrogacy always (30%) or often (34%) presents a moral problem, (b) a minority group (14%) for which maternal surrogacy does not systematically present a moral problem, and

Mapping French people and health professionals' positions regarding the circumstances of morphine use to relieve cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients suffer in part because some health professionals prescribe or administer amounts of analgesics, namely opioids, which are too small or too widely spaced to be fully effective. Patients' reluctance to use opioids for pain treatment is often mentioned as a reason not to apply the official guidelines, but very few studies have been conducted on people's attitudes about opioid use to relieve cancer pain.

METHODS

One hundred twenty lay participants and 30 health professionals (7 physicians and 23 nurses) were presented with a set of vignettes describing a terminally ill woman with cancer who is in pain. The vignettes were composed according to a four within-subject factor design: (a) level of pain reported by the patient, (b) patient's explicit request for additional administration of analgesics, (c) the physicians' final decision (e.g., to use a stronger analgesic combining paracetamol and codeine), and (d) the way the decision was made (collectively or not). Participants were asked to assess the extent to which the physician's decision was, in their view, acceptable.

RESULTS

Seven qualitatively different positions were found among participants. They were called as follows: tend to disagree with any decision (9%), increase the strength of the painkiller in any case (16%), give morphine preferentially (9%), partly depends on pain level (23%), fully depends on pain level (6%), depends on decision process and on pain level (22%), and tend not to disagree with any collective decision (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 91% of participants agreed with the use of morphine in terminally ill cancer patients when the pain level was high (score of 7) and the decision to increase the strength of the painkiller was taken collectively. This percentage dropped to 69% when the team was not involved in the decision and to 40% when the pain level was lower (score of 4). If opposition to the use of morphine exists, it is not opposition to morphine itself but opposition to the circumstances of its use.

The ethics of postoperative pain management: Mapping nurses' views

AIM

We explored the positions of nurses working in hospitals regarding the acceptability of refusing to give a repeat dose of painkiller to a postoperative patient who requested it. These positions were compared with that of lay people, physicians, and other health professionals.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Factorial design was used to assess the impact of 6 situational factors: the patient's age, the current level of pain as assessed by the nurse, the number of requests, the level of risk associated with the administration of a repeat dose, the outcome of surgery, and the giving of alternative mild analgesics. We implemented a combination of scenario technique and of cluster analysis. Data were collected from April 2013 to December 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

138 registered nurses, 32 nurse's aides, 33 physicians, 23 psychologists, and 169 lay people participated in the study.

RESULTS

We found 4 qualitatively different meaningful positions. A plurality of participants (57% of nurses) considered that refusing was not acceptable, irrespective of circumstances. A substantial minority of participants (but 52% of physicians) considered that refusing was acceptable only if the level of pain was low and the risk was high. Other participants (mostly lay people) considered that refusing was always acceptable each time a risk of side effects, either serious or simply mild, was present.

French laypeople's and health professionals' views on the acceptability of terminal sedation

AIM

To study the views on the acceptability of terminal sedation (TS) of laypeople and health professionals in France.

METHOD

In November 2013-June 2015, 223 laypeople and 53 health professionals (21 physicians and 32) judged the acceptability of TS in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of four factors: (a) the patients' life expectancy, (b) their request for sedation, (c) the decision-making process and (d) the type of sedation. In all scenarios, the patients were women with a terminal illness suffering from intractable pain and receiving the best possible care. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Five qualitatively different positions were found that were termed TS acceptable if decision taken collectively (15%), TS acceptable if patient explicitly requested it (19%), TS acceptable if patient did not explicitly oppose it (47%), 24-hour sedation not acceptable (6%) and TS always acceptable (13%). The percentage of older participants in the 'always acceptable' cluster was higher than the percentage of younger participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Laypeople and health professionals do not appear to be systematically opposed to TS. The most important factors in increasing its acceptability were the patients' request for sedation and the collective character of the decision-making process.

Spirituality, Religiosity, and Health: a Comparison of Physicians' Attitudes in Brazil, India, and Indonesia

BACKGROUND

One of the biggest challenges in the spirituality, religiosity, and health field is to understand how patients and physicians from different cultures deal with spiritual and religious issues in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to compare physicians' perspectives on the influence of spirituality and religion (S/R) on health between Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

METHOD

This is a cross-sectional, cross-cultural, multi-center study carried out from 2010 to 2012, examining physicians' attitudes from two continents. Participants completed a self-rated questionnaire that collected information on sociodemographic characteristics, S/R involvement, and perspectives concerning religion, spirituality, and health. Differences between physicians' responses in each country were examined using chi-squared, ANOVA, and MANCOVA.

RESULTS

A total of 611 physicians (194 from Brazil, 295 from India, and 122 from Indonesia) completed the survey. Indonesian physicians were more religious and more likely to address S/R when caring for patients. Brazilian physicians were more likely to believe that S/R influenced patients' health. Brazilian and Indonesians were as likely as to believe that it is appropriate to talk and discuss S/R with patients, and more likely than Indians. No differences were found concerning attitudes toward spiritual issues.

CONCLUSION

Physicians from these different three countries had very different attitudes on spirituality, religiosity, and health. Ethnicity and culture can have an important influence on how spirituality is approached in medical practice. S/R curricula that train physicians how to address spirituality in clinical practice must take these differences into account.