Search

Background: In this study we investigated (a) to what extent physicians have experience with performing a range of end-of-life decisions (ELDs), (b) if they have no experience with performing an ELD, would they be willing to do so under certain conditions and (c) which background characteristics are associated with having experience with/or being willing to make such ELDs. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 16,486 physicians from specialities in which death is common: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Results: The response rate differed between countries (39-68%). The experience of foregoing life-sustaining treatment ranged between 37% and 86%: intensifying the alleviation of pain or other symptoms while taking into account possible hastening of death between 57% and 95%, and experience with deep sedation until death between 12% and 46%. Receiving a request for hastening death differed between 34% and 71%, and intentionally hastening death on the explicit request of a patient between 1% and 56%. Conclusion: There are differences between countries in experiences with ELDs, in willingness to perform ELDs and in receiving requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Foregoing treatment and intensifying alleviation of pain and symptoms are practiced and accepted by most physicians in all countries. Physicians with training in palliative care are more inclined to perform ELDs, as are those who attend to higher numbers of terminal patients. Thus, this seems not to be only a matter of opportunity, but also a matter of attitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the study concerning the difference between Europe and Australian physicians in terms of dealing with medical end-of-life decision (ELD) making. In the course of the study it was found that most physicians prefer to comply to the request of the patient and family members. ELD percentage is low but vary in the extent of the case. Cultural and legal factors influence the frequencies of different ELDs and the strength of their determinants across countries, but do not change the essence of decision making.

Unlabelled: For many families and their children, the use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) is an accepted adjunct or alternative to conventional therapy, even if data available in the literature regarding risks and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) pertaining to childhood populations are scarce. Moreover, despite widespread and increasing use of CAM, there are limited data on how paediatricians communicate with mothers and/or patients about CAM. Therefore, we report the studies available in the literature in the paediatric field and summarise what is known about ADRs and risks of CAM, taking into account in particular problems related to interactions between phytotherapy and conventional medicines and to counselling.Conclusion: from the analysis of the literature, some interesting aspects emerge: (1) the extent of CAM use in the paediatric field is increasingly sought by parents of children with chronic illnesses; (2) most parents who choose CAM medicine for their children believe that these therapies are "natural" and thus "safe" and (3) physicians often feel to know too little about CAM and wish to learn more for different reasons including "to dissuade whether the alternative method is unsafe and/or ineffective". Therefore, paediatricians should be prepared to discuss alternative therapies with parents, since talking about CAM may help to minimise the risks and to restrain parental misconceptions and doubts. Educational interventions for parents should also be performed to bring about a more aware use of traditional and alternative medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]