Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medicine has undergone substantial changes in the way medical dilemmas are being dealt with. Here we explore the attitude of Israeli physicians to two debatable dilemmas: disclosing the full truth to patients about a poor medical prognosis, and assisting terminally ill patients in ending their lives. METHODS: Attitudes towards medico-ethical dilemmas were examined through a nationwide online survey conducted among members of the Israeli Medical Association, yielding 2926 responses. RESULTS: Close to 60% of the respondents supported doctor-assisted death, while one third rejected it. Half of the respondents opposed disclosure of the full truth about a poor medical prognosis, and the others supported it. Support for truth-telling was higher among younger physicians, and support for doctor-assisted death was higher among females and among physicians practicing in hospitals. One quarter of respondents supported both truth-telling and assisted death, thereby exhibiting respect for patients' autonomy. This approach characterizes younger doctors and is less frequent among general practitioners. Another quarter of the respondents rejected truth-telling, yet supported assisted death, thereby manifesting compassionate pragmatism. This was associated with medical education, being more frequent among doctors educated in Israel, than those educated abroad. All this suggests that both personal attributes and professional experience affect attitudes of physicians to ethical questions. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of attitudes to two debatable medical dilemmas allowed portrayal of the multi-faceted medico-ethical scene in Israel. Moreover, this study, demonstrates that one can probe the ethical atmosphere of a given medical community, at various time points by using a few carefully selected questions.