ArticleMonash bioethics review2010
The acceptability among lay persons and health professionals of actively ending the lives of damaged newborns.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEuthanasia is performed on occasion, even on newborns, but is highly controversial, and it is prohibited by law and condemned by medical ethics in most countries.
aimTo characterise and compare the judgments of lay persons, nurses, and physicians of the acceptability of actively ending the life of a damaged newborn.
methodsConvenience samples of 237 lay persons, 214 nurses, and 76 physicians in the south of France rated the acceptability on a scale of 0-10 of giving a lethal injection in 54 scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 within-subject factors: gestational age of 6, 7, or 9 months; 3 levels of severity of either perinatal asphyxia or of genetic disease; attitude of the parents about prolonging care unknown, favourable, or unfavourable; and decision made individually by the physician or collectively by the medical team. Overall ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and each cluster to analysis of variance and graphic representation.
resultsLay persons (mean acceptability rating 4.29) were significantly more favourable to euthanasia than nurses (2.84), p < .005, or physicians (2.12), p < .005. Five clusters were found with different judgment rules, i.e., how the information was integrated. More physicians (30 per cent) than nurses (14 per cent), p < .01, or lay persons (11 per cent), p < .01, rated euthanasia as never, under any condition, acceptable. Most, however, asserted that it was increasingly acceptable as the factors combined to favour it, especially when the parents desired to stop treatment. More physicians (45 per cent) and nurses (46 per cent) than lay persons (21 per cent), p < .01, used a complex conjunctive rule (level of parent's attitude x level of severity of damage x consultation with team or not) rather than a simple additive rule.
conclusionsUnlike law and medical ethics, most of the lay persons, nurses, and physicians judged the acceptability of euthanasia as a function of the circumstances. Most health professionals combined the factors in a conjunctive (multiplicative), rather than additive, fashion in accordance with legislation for adults in The Netherlands and elsewhere that requires a set of criteria to be fulfilled before it is legitimate to end a patient's life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.