Search

Purpose: Apart from organizational issues, quality of inter-professional collaboration during ethical decision-making may affect the intention to leave one’s job. To determine whether ethical climate is associated with the intention to leave after adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics. Methods: Perceptions of the ethical climate among clinicians working in 68 adult ICUs in 12 European countries and the US were measured using a self-assessment questionnaire, together with job characteristics and intent to leave as a sub-analysis of the Dispropricus study. The validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire included seven factors: not avoiding decision-making at end-of-life (EOL), mutual respect within the interdisciplinary team, open interdisciplinary reflection, ethical awareness, self-reflective physician leadership, active decision-making at end-of-life by physicians, and involvement of nurses in EOL. Hierarchical mixed effect models were used to assess associations between these factors, and the intent to leave in clinicians within ICUs, within the different countries. Results: Of 3610 nurses and 1137 physicians providing ICU bedside care, 63.1% and 62.9% participated, respectively. Of 2992 participating clinicians, 782 (26.1%) had intent to leave, of which 27% nurses, 24% junior and 22.7% senior physicians. After adjustment for country, ICU and clinicians characteristics, mutual respect OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66- 0.90), open interdisciplinary reflection (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62–0.86]) and not avoiding EOL decisions (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77–0.98]) were all associated with a lower intent to leave. Conclusion: This is the first large multicenter study showing an independent association between clinicians’ intent to leave and the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU. Interventions to reduce intent to leave may be most effective when they focus on improving mutual respect, interdisciplinary reflection and active decision-making at EOL., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Caring for dying patients appears to be one of the most difficult challenges in modern medicine. Apart from respective medical standards, such care is influenced by legal stipulations, economic resources, societal values, and ethical principles. In Germany, legal provisions prohibit actively hastening a patient's death. Although passive and indirect means of assistance to die are permitted for terminally ill patients, they appear to be implemented only with hesitation. Probably, the authority of advance directives needs further clarification. More importantly, however, physicians' deficits in knowledge as well as their conceptual and psycho-emotional barriers need comprehensive improvement in order to foster end-of-life care.

Legal provisions in The Netherlands and Belgium currently allow physicians to actively end a patient's life at his or her request under certain conditions. The term that is used for this is “euthanasia.” The same term, “euthanasia,” was used in Germany during the Nazi regime for a program of cleansing the “German nation” in which untold thousands of persons were denied human empathy or medical care and were thereby condemned to death. The medical profession played a leading role in the planning, administration, and supervision of this “euthanasia” program, with a large proportion of German physicians proactively shirking all moral responsibility and ultimately paving the way for the Holocaust. The term “euthanasia” was so abused during the Nazi regime as a camouflage word for murder of selected subpopulations with the willing participation of physicians, we believe that, regardless of the benevolent goals of current euthanasia practices, for historical reasons the term “euthanasia” must not be used with regards to current end-of-life care.