ReviewPalliative & supportive care2025
Narrative review of the impact on physicians of administering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and its association with moral distress.
Review in Palliative & supportive care, 2025. 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.
- Life, death, and 280 characters: a hashtag analysis of #AssistedSuicide on X (2015-2025).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Attitudes, Roles, and Competencies of Clinical Psychologists Regarding Euthanasia Due to Unbearable Mental Suffering.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMoral distress affects a significant proportion of clinicians who have received requests and participated in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) globally. It has been reported that personal and professional support needs are often unaddressed, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.
objectivesThis study aimed to review studies from 2017 to 2023 for the perceived risks, harms, and benefits to doctors of administering E/PAS and the ethical implications for the profession of medicine resulting from this practice.
methodsThe search explored original research papers published in peer-reviewed English language literature between June 2017 and December 2023 to extend prior reviews. This included both studies reporting quantitative and qualitative data, with a specific focus on the impact on, or response from, physicians to their participation in E/PAS. The quantitative review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The qualitative review used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme to assess whether studies were valid, reliable, and trustworthy.
resultsThirty studies (quantitative SIGNIFICANCE OF
resultsParticipation in E/PAS can reward some and cause moral distress in others. For many clinicians, this can include significant adverse personal and professional consequences, thereby impacting the medical profession as a whole.
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.