Exploring the implementation of role extension for Namibian radiographers: Perspectives on intravenous injection of contrast media.

INTRODUCTION: Role extension to include intravenous (IV) injection of contrast media has been formally embraced by radiographers and their regulatory bodies in developed countries. The revised scope of practice, in our Namibian context, has formalised IV injection as an extended role for radiographers. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of radiographers regarding this new role of IV injection of contrast media. METHODS: A qualitative design with a descriptive phenomenological approach was employed to collect data from 15 radiographers working in both public and private radiology facilities. Participants were purposively selected to participate in focus group discussions and individual interviews. An interview guide was used to facilitate the discussions and interviews, and a voice recorder was used for recording. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Tesch's 8-step method. RESULTS: From the 15 participants, three themes were developed: enhanced service delivery with two subthemes (improved departmental workflow and patient care), training needs with two subthemes (inadequate contrast media reaction training and standardised training requirement), and medical-legal issues with two subthemes (regulatory blurriness and role conflict distress). CONCLUSION: The participants expressed mixed perceptions towards the IV injection role of radiographers, emphasising the benefits for the department and patients while raising concerns regarding standardisation of training and associated medico-legal issues. Furthermore, a large-scale evaluation is necessary to uncover the challenges and barriers to the successful adoption of this new role. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The role extension for radiographers to include IV injections is a long-awaited development, but it should be accompanied by the necessary training and guidelines to fully realise its benefits.

Attitudes and practices concerning the end of life: a comparison between physicians from the United States and from The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study compares attitudes and practices concerning the end-of-life decisions between physicians in the United States and in the Netherlands, using the same set of questions. METHODS: A total of 152 physicians from Oregon and 67 from the Netherlands were interviewed using the same questions about (1) their attitudes toward increasing morphine with premature death as a likely consequence, physician-assisted suicide (PAS), and euthanasia; and (2) their involvement in cases of euthanasia, PAS, or the ending of life without an explicit request from the patient. Odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated to investigate relation between attitudes and various characteristics of the respondents. RESULTS: American physicians found euthanasia less often acceptable than the Dutch, but there was similarity in attitudes concerning increasing morphine and PAS. American physicians found increasing morphine and PAS more often acceptable in cases where patients were concerned about becoming a burden to their family. There was a discrepancy between the attitudes and practices of Dutch physicians concerning PAS. The proportions of physicians having practiced euthanasia, PAS, or ending of life without an explicit request from the patient differ more between the countries than do their attitudes, with American physicians having been involved in these practices less often than the Dutch. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of American and Dutch physicians, 2 important differences emerge: different attitudes toward the patient who is concerned over being a burden, and different frequency of euthanasia and PAS in the two countries.

Stability of attitudes regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia among oncology patients, physicians, and the general public.

PURPOSE: Attitudes regarding the ethics of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia have been examined in many cross-sectional studies. Stability of these attitudes has not been studied, and this is important in informing the dialog on PAS in this country. We evaluated the stability of attitudes regarding euthanasia and PAS among three cohorts. METHODS: Subjects included 593 respondents: 111 oncology patients, 324 oncologists, and 158 members of the general public. We conducted initial and follow-up interviews separated by 6 to 12 months by telephone, regarding acceptance of PAS and euthanasia in four different clinical vignettes. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents with stable responses to vignettes ranged from 69.2% to 94.8%. In comparison to patients and the general public, physicians had less stable responses concerning the PAS pain vignette (69.1% v 80.8%; P =.001) and more stable responses for all euthanasia vignettes (P <.001) except for pain. Over time, physicians were significantly more likely to change toward opposing PAS and euthanasia in all vignettes (P <.05). Characteristics previously associated with attitudes regarding PAS and euthanasia, such as Roman Catholic religion, were not predictive of stability. CONCLUSION: Up to one third of participants changed their attitudes regarding the ethical acceptability of PAS and euthanasia in their follow-up interview. This lack of consistency mandates careful interpretation of referendums and requests for physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, in this study, we found that physicians are becoming increasingly opposed to PAS and euthanasia. The growing disparity between physicians and patients regarding the role of these practices is large enough to suggest possible conflicts in the delivery of end-of-life care.

The practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States: adherence to proposed safeguards and effects on physicians.

CONTEXT: Despite intense debates about legalization, there are few data examining the details of actual euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) cases in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the practices of euthanasia and PAS are consistent with proposed safeguards and the effect on physicians of having performed euthanasia or PAS. DESIGN: Structured in-depth telephone interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected oncologists in the United States. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to primary and secondary safeguards for the practice of euthanasia and PAS; regret, comfort, and fear of prosecution from performing euthanasia or PAS. RESULTS: A total of 355 oncologists (72.6% response rate) were interviewed on euthanasia and PAS. On 2 screening questions, 56 oncologists (15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or PAS; 53 oncologists (94.6% response rate) participated in in-depth interviews. Thirty-eight of 53 oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or PAS. Twenty-three patients (60.5%) both initiated and repeated their request for euthanasia or PAS, but 6 patients (15.8%) did not participate in the decision for euthanasia or PAS. Thirty-seven patients (97.4%) were experiencing unremitting pain or such poor physical functioning they could not perform self-care. Physicians sought consultation in 15 cases (39.5%). Overall, oncologists adhered to all 3 main safeguards in 13 cases (34.2%): (1) having the patient initiate and repeat the request for euthanasia or PAS, (2) ensuring the patient was experiencing extreme physical pain or suffering, and (3) consulting with a colleague. Those who adhered to the safeguards had known their patients longer and tended to be more religious. In 28 cases (73.7%), the family supported the decision. In all cases of pain, patients were receiving narcotic analgesia. Fifteen patients (39.5%) were enrolled in a hospice. While 19 oncologists (52.6%) received comfort from having helped a patient with euthanasia or PAS, 9 (23.7%) regretted having performed euthanasia or PAS, and 15 (39.5%) feared prosecution. CONCLUSIONS: Intractable pain or poor physical functioning seem to be nearly absolute requirements for physicians to perform euthanasia or PAS. Only one third of cases are performed consistently with proposed safeguards. For some patients, end-of-life care that includes opioid analgesia and hospice care does not obviate their desire for euthanasia or PAS. While the majority of physicians seem comforted by their actions, some experience adverse consequences from having performed euthanasia or PAS.

Physician desire for euthanasia and assisted suicide: would physicians practice what they preach?

PURPOSE: Euthanasia is a pressing public issue. We sought to assess how frequently physicians could perceive of a desire for euthanasia themselves and whether they would be willing to provide patients the same interventions. METHODS: We interviewed 355 randomly selected oncologists from the United States and interviewed them about their attitudes and practices related to euthanasia and assisted suicide. RESULTS: Of the 355 oncologists, 48.1% could imagine a situation in which they might desire euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves. Oncologists who were Catholic and more religious were significantly less likely to desire these interventions for themselves. Of those oncologists who could imagine a situation in which they might desire euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves, 85.8% found euthanasia and/or assisted suicide acceptable for their patients. Of the oncologists who could not imagine a situation in which they might desire euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves, 41.7% still found these interventions ethical for their patients. Only 6.8% of oncologists could imagine a situation in which they might desire euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves but found these interventions unacceptable for their patients. CONCLUSION: Almost half of surveyed oncologists could imagine a situation in which they would desire euthanasia or assisted suicide. However, in many cases, this was for nonterminal illness which would be prohibited by proposed laws. When physicians desire euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves, they are willing to provide these interventions for their patients; therefore, most physicians would practice what they preach. Indeed, when they deviate, oncologists overwhelmingly respect patient autonomy rather than impose their own views on patients.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public.

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are pressing public issues. We aimed to collect empirical data on these controversial interventions, particularly on the attitudes and experiences of oncology patients. METHODS: We interviewed, by telephone with vignette-style questions, 155 oncology patients, 355 oncologists, and 193 members of the public to assess their attitudes and experiences in relation to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. FINDINGS: About two thirds of oncology patients and the public found euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide acceptable for patients with unremitting pain. Oncology patients and the public found euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide least acceptable in vignettes involving "burden on the family" and "life viewed as meaningless". In no vignette--even for patients with unremitting pain--did a majority of oncologists find euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide ethically acceptable. Patients actually experiencing pain were more likely to find euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide unacceptable. More than a quarter of oncology patients had seriously thought about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and nearly 12 percent had seriously discussed these interventions with physicians or others. Patients with depression and psychological distress were significantly more likely to have seriously discussed euthanasia, hoarded drugs, or read Final Exit. More than half of oncologists had received requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Nearly one in seven oncologists had carried out euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. INTERPRETATION: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are important issues in the care of terminally ill patients and while oncology patients experiencing pain are unlikely to desire these interventions patients with depression are more likely to request assistance in committing suicide. Patients who request such an intervention should be evaluated and, where appropriate, treated for depression before euthanasia can be discussed seriously.