In India, the term euthanasia is frequently used to describe a wide range of end-of-life practices, including withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and administration of lethal drugs. Such usage diverges from more narrow definitions that restrict euthanasia to the intentional administration of lethal drugs.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines how euthanasia has been defined and operationalized in quantitative studies of Indian physicians’ and nurses’ attitudes, and estimates the prevalence of approval when euthanasia is defined narrowly.

Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies published from 2010 onward. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Studies were included in the meta-analysis only if they reported attitudes toward euthanasia as narrowly defined.

Nine studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Definitions of euthanasia varied considerably, and several studies combined attitudes toward treatment withdrawal with attitudes toward the administration of lethal drugs. Four studies reporting on 519 nurses and physicians provided data suitable for meta-analysis. Approval of euthanasia, defined as the intentional administration of lethal drugs, ranged from 12% to 20%, with a pooled prevalence of 16% (95% confidence interval: 0.13–0.19). This prevalence is notably lower than in earlier reports on Indian healthcare professionals’ attitudes.

Definitional inconsistency substantially affects reported attitudes toward euthanasia in Indian research. When euthanasia is defined narrowly, approval among healthcare professionals is low and consistent across studies. These findings highlight the need for conceptual clarity in future research to support accurate interpretation of empirical data and to strengthen the contribution of studies on ethical attitudes to ethical and palliative care scholarship.

This study explored Australian palliative care clinicians’ perspectives on the legalization of voluntary assisted dying (VAD), aiming to identify variables associated with clinicians’ views and understand challenges of its implementation.

An online survey exploring support for legalization of VAD was sent to palliative care clinicians in Queensland and New South Wales and followed up with semi-structured interviews. Support was categorized as positive, uncertain, or negative. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to identify variables independently predictive of euthanasia support. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory to understand key concepts shaping views on VAD.

Of 142 respondents, 53% supported, 10% were uncertain, and 37% opposed legalizing euthanasia for terminal illness with severe symptoms. Support was lower for patients with chronic illness (34%), severe disability (24%), depression (9%), severe dementia (5%), and for any adult with capacity (4%). The model showed lower support among doctors than nurses (38% vs. 69%, p = 0.0001), those in New South Wales compared with Queensland (44% vs. 69%, p = 0.0002), the highly religious versus least religious (24% vs. 79%, p = 0.00002), those politically conservative versus progressive (39% vs. 60%, p = 0.04), and those with more healthcare experience (p = 0.03). Seventeen interviews revealed 2 distinct groups: one focused on the event of death and the need to relieve suffering, providing comfort in the final moments; the second on the journey of dying and the possibility of discovering peace despite suffering. Those in the first group supported legal VAD, while those in the second opposed it. Despite opposing views, compassion was a unifying foundation common to both groups.

There are 2 fundamentally different orientations toward VAD among palliative care clinicians, which will likely contribute to tensions within teams. Acknowledging that both perspectives are rooted in compassion may provide a constructive basis for navigating disagreements and supporting team cohesion.

Moral 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.

This 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.

The 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.

Thirty studies (quantitative n = 5, qualitative n = 22, mixed methods n = 3) were identified and fulfilled acceptable research assessment criteria. The following 5 themes arose from the synthesis of qualitative studies: (1) experience of the request prior to administration; (2) the doctor’s role and agency in the death of a patient; (3) moral distress post-administration; (4) workload and burnout; and (5) professional guidance and support. Both quantitative and qualitative studies showed a significant proportion of clinicians (45.8–80%) have been adversely affected by their involvement in E/PAS, with only a minority of those reporting adverse impacts seeking support.

Participation 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.

Caregivers play a significant role in the process of Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD), reporting stances of support, opposition, or ambivalence. Though caregiver vulnerability is recognized, little is understood about how caregivers adjust when patients seek VAD. We sought to appreciate how bereaved caregivers of patients in organizations that did not participate in VAD processed and adapted to the challenges faced.

We purposefully recruited caregivers from cases reviewed in a retrospective study exploring how VAD impacted the quality of palliative care. We further expanded sampling to maximize diverse views. We used qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore unique caregiver perspectives.

Twenty-three caregivers completed interviews. Most were female, Australian-born, retired, identified with no religion, bereaved for 1–3 years, and in a caregiving role for 1–5 years. Caregivers sought accompaniment and non-abandonment across all stages of VAD. Coping was enhanced through framing and reframing thought processes and reconciling values. Caregivers bore responsibility through heightened emotions and experienced isolation and anticipatory grief as they reconciled perceived societal attitudes. Caregivers additionally failed to understand the rationale behind organizational stances and were unable to articulate the moral conflicts that arose. Impartiality from professionals was valued for caregivers to sustain care for the patient.

Despite feelings of vulnerability and isolation, caregivers demonstrated benevolence, courage, and self-compassion, reframing and accommodating their concerns. Professional accompaniment and non-abandonment necessitate solidarity and empowerment, without necessarily enabling VAD. Findings demonstrated the need for individuals and organizations to clearly articulate their willingness to continue to accompany patients, regardless of their position on VAD.

Since physician-assisted dying (PAD) has become a part of the clinical dialogue in the United States (US) and other Western countries, it has spawned controversy in the moral, ethical, and legal realm, with significant cross-country variation. The phenomenon of PAD includes 2 practices: Euthanasia and medical aid in dying (MAiD). Although euthanasia has been allowed in different parts of the world, in the US it is illegal. MAiD has been enacted into law in some jurisdictions. As the practice involves people at the end of life (EOL), often with cancer, and sometimes struggling with psychiatric symptoms; they gain added salience in the field of Consultation-Liaison (CL) Psychiatry in general and Psycho-Oncology in particular.

The current paper reviews a case where a patient did request for MAiD and successfully carried it through, this case became more salient, as the CL Psychiatry department was intimately linked at various stages of care for the patient.

In describing the case several other aspects of EOL care issues were touched upon, and the various debates as well as treatment modalities, for an individual requesting for medical aid in dying were described.

MAiD will possibly remain a sensitive and controversial topic of discussion across the spectrum of healthcare, and as responsible and compassionate advocates for the patients, clinicians need to engage more with the debate surrounding it and facilitate informed decision making. We believe that the present case will throw light on to this enigmatic practice and help in furthering the dialogue surrounding MAiD.