Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:595-596 (13 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7415.595
P Peretti-Watel, researcher1, M K Bendiane, researcher2, H Pegliasco, chairman3, J M Lapiana, director of palliative care centre4, R Favre, professor5, A Galinier, consultant6, J P Moatti, professor7
1 Regional Center for Disease Control of South-Eastern France, 13006 Marseille, France, 2 Health and Medical Research National Institute, Research Unit 379, Social Sciences Applied to Medical Innovation, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, 3 Departmental Center of Private Health Professionals, Marseille, 4 La Maison, Gardanne, France, 5 Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Service of Medical Oncology, Marseille, 6 Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Department of Penitentiary Care, Marseille, France, 7 Department of Economics, University of Aix-Marseille II, France
Correspondence to: P Peretti-Watel peretti{at}marseille.inserm.fr
We assessed French doctors' opinions toward euthanasia and collected data about their attitudes and practices. We compared medical specialties which demand different amounts of palliative care and different amounts of empathy toward and communication with terminally ill patients.
We investigated respondents' involvement in end of life care and palliative care, their attitude toward terminally ill patients, and whether "euthanasia should be legalised, as in the Netherlands." We compared medical specialties with Pearson's
2.
We contacted 1552 doctors, and 917 (59%) agreed to participate. Response rate was greater for oncologists (217/261; 83%) and neurologists (198/287; 69%) than for general practitioners (502/1004; 50%). Doctors who did not respond were generally too busy; they did not differ in sex, age, or size of town from respondents.
Only a minority of respondents were trained in palliative care, especially neurologists (24/198; 12.1%). Oncologists treated more terminally ill patients during the past year (mean 26.3 patients v 9.4 for neurologists and 7.0 for general practitioners; P < 0.05), and general practitioners practised less often in palliative care units (table). Oncologists were less likely to feel uncomfortable with terminally ill patients (7.8% v 16.7% among general practitioners and 27.8% among neurologists; P < 0.001) and more prone to systematically communicate the objectives of treatment (65.9% v 57.2% among general practitioners and 47.0% among neurologists; P < 0.01) and the diagnosis to competent terminally ill patients. Oncologists were also less in favour of legalising euthanasia (35.5% v 44.8% of general practitioners and 46.5% of neurologists; P < 0.05).
|
Our study has several limitations. Answering questions about a sensitive topic on the telephone can be difficult, a questionnaire with a fixed choice of answers prevented doctors from qualifying or justifying their responses, and we lacked detailed information about doctors who did not respond.
Previous studies found similar patterns, but the French counterparts to Italian general practitioners and US oncologists were more in favour of legalising euthanasia.3 4 Our findings contradict the argument that opinions on euthanasia are related to cultural differences in English speaking countries; comparative studies are needed.2 In France, the support shown for euthanasia may be due to a lack of professional knowledge on palliative care.5 Improving such knowledge would improve end of life care and may also clarify the debate over euthanasia.
Contributors: MKB, HP, JML, RF, and AG designed the survey and reviewed and improved the paper. JPM and PP-W did the statistical analysis and wrote the paper. PP-W is guarantor.
Funding: Departmental Centre of Private Health Professionals (grant from the fund for improving ambulatory care), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseilles (within the hospital programme for clinical research), and Cancer Research Foundation (ARC).
Competing interests: None declared.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses