The Impact of Family Medicine Residency Training on Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in Texas

 

Hormazd Sanjana, M.D.; Charles Sponsel, D.O.; David Baldwin, Ph.D.; Brett Nile, M.D.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Department of 
Family and Community Medicine, Odessa, Texas

Objective

To analyze the impact of family medicine residency training in developing the opinions and attitudes of residents toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

 

Design

 

This is a prospective study designed to compare the change in attitudes toward PAS and euthanasia of family medicine residents from their first year of training to their third year. The sample population included all 250 PGY3 family medicine residents in Texas, in 2002-20031. A Euthanasia Questionnaire2, similar to the one completed by PGY1 residents in 2000-2001, was given to PGY3 in 2002-2003. These were completed and returned in self-addressed and stamped envelopes. The results of the later questionnaire were then compared to those of the first questionnaire to determine whether there was a significant difference in the residents’ attitudes toward PAS and euthanasia as they were ready to graduate.

Analysis

 

The Euthanasia Questionnaire2 evaluates a physician’s beliefs about euthanasia in five areas using a five-point Likert scale. These five areas include: 1) withholding life-sustaining measures and the use of opioids to relieve pain despite hastening the patient’s death; 2) philosophical issues about Euthanasia; 3) legal issues involving euthanasia; 4) alternative choices to euthanasia; and 5) global factors assessing attitudes toward euthanasia and PAS.

 

The duration of the study was one year. Considering a 20 percent difference on a five point Likert scale as clinically significant, the sample size needed was 75 in each group in order to have a power of 80 percent with an alpha of 0.05. The data were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the two cohorts (PGY1 2000 versus PGY3 2003). A probability (P) of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

 
 

Results

 

Out of the 250 questionnaires mailed out, 86 completed and returned (34 percent return rate). Demographically, there were 54.6 percent males and 45.4 percent females. Of the group, 41.5 percent considered themselves conservative, 35.4 percent moderate, 18.3 percent liberal and 4.9 percent were undecided. The race/ethnicity was 57.3 percent Caucasians, 22 percent Hispanic, 19.5 percent Asians and 1.2 percent other. As to type of practice, 56.1 percent were community-based, 41.5 percent were university-based, and 2.4 percent HMO.

 

As the 2003 graduates1 progressed in their residency training from PGY1 to PGY3 the following changes were noted:

 

During their first year of training,1 this cohort held liberal attitudes toward euthanasia and PAS. Toward the end of their three years of training, their attitudes became more conservative.

 

As a group, the residents were not in favor of doctors being allowed to practice euthanasia (P<0.021). They disagreed on providing specially trained physicians for euthanasia (P<0.006), on permitting legislation for practicing active euthanasia (P<0.02) or allowing patients to ask for active euthanasia (P<0.026).

 

However, they did agree upon giving morphine drip, even if it meant hastening death (P<0.043).

 

The PGY3s all agreed that paying close attention to end-of-life care would reduce requests for euthanasia and PAS (P<0.025).

 

They also agreed that religious factors play a part in deterring other physicians from participating in acts of euthanasia and PAS (P<0.044).

Conclusion

 

Residency training in family medicine plays a large part in molding the attitudes and changing the patterns of new physicians. Training helps attune new physicians to society and its various norms before they become full-fledged doctors. As in the 2001 study1, we see the proverbial “taming of the shrew” by residency training programs. Since euthanasia has been legalized in Oregon, and other states like Michigan, Hawaii, and California are considering doing the same, it may only be a matter of a few years before similar legislation is introduced in Texas. In that case, the future family practitioners would be caught unprepared, which would be a cause for alarm.

 

Both our previous study1 and this study prove that the family medicine residents coming out of training are unprepared to meet these unknown giants named euthanasia and PAS.

 

It may be in part due to unavailability of enough information on the subjects, unwillingness on the part of our teachers to consider euthanasia and PAS part of routine training, or sheer ignorance of this quietly but surely growing situation.

 

The overall conservative attitude seen in the graduating residents in this study is similar to the one seen in our previous study1. This trend reflects a fear of the unknown that exists in a training physician, which could be detrimental in this rapidly evolving and liberalized society, which is well aware of its rights and privileges.

 

Like any fear, fear of euthanasia and PAS can be curbed by proper education. If academia in Texas has to arm the future physicians with enough knowledge about this topic, early intervention is called for to make euthanasia and PAS a part of our routine curriculum.

 

References

  1. Charles Sponsel, D.O., Brett Nile, M.D. David M. Baldwin, Ph.D. and Hormazd Sanjana, M.D. An examination of attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) of Family Practice Residents in Texas. Texas Family Physician 2003; 53:58-59

  2. Doukas DJ, Waterhouse D, Gorenflo DW, Seid J. Attitudes and behaviors on physician assisted death:  a study of Michigan oncologists. J of Clin Oncol 1995; 13:1055-1061