ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2018
The Views of Clergy Regarding Ethical Controversies in Care at the End of Life.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2018. 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.
- Interprofessional Perspectives on Providing Spiritual Care for Patients With Lung Cancer in Outpatient Settings.Oncology nursing forum · 2019Article
- Training Community Clergy in Serious Illness: Balancing Faith and Medicine.Journal of religion and health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextAlthough religion often informs ethical judgments, little is known about the views of American clergy regarding controversial end-of-life ethical issues including allowing to die and physician aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide (PAD/PAS).
objectiveTo describe the views of U.S. clergy concerning allowing to die and PAD/PAS.
methodsA survey was mailed to 1665 nationally representative clergy between 8/2014 to 3/2015 (60% response rate). Outcome variables included beliefs about whether the terminally ill should ever be "allowed to die" and moral/legal opinions concerning PAD/PAS.
resultsMost U.S. clergy are Christian (98%). Clergy agreed that there are circumstances in which the terminally ill should be "allowed to die" (80%). A minority agreed that PAD/PAS was morally (28%) or legally (22%) acceptable. Mainline/Liberal Christian clergy were more likely to approve of the morality (56%) and legality (47%) of PAD/PAS, in contrast to all other clergy groups (6%-17%). Greater end-of-life medical knowledge was associated with moral disapproval of PAD/PAS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19, P = 0.03). Those reporting distrust in health care were less likely to oppose legalization of PAD/PAS (AOR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99, P < 0.02). Religious beliefs associated with disapproval of PAD/PAS included "life's value is not tied to the patient's quality of life" (AOR 2.12; 95% CI, 0.1.49-3.03, P < 0.001) and "only God numbers our days" (AOR 2.60; 95% CI, 1.77-3.82, P < 0.001).
conclusionMost U.S. clergy approve of "allowing to die" but reject the morality or legalization of PAD/PAS. Respectful discussion in public discourse should consider rather than ignore underlying religious reasons informing end-of-life controversies.
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.