0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Euthanasia in Africa: A scoping review of empirical evidence

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Aims

          The core ethical perplexity is that physician‐assisted suicide and euthanasia (PAS/E) contradicts the core value of medical practice which is about the duty of care to preserve life. While most arguments for and against euthanasia emerge from other continents, no African country legalizes or decriminalizes PAS/E. The essence of this scoping review is to collate evidence and scientific voices on euthanasia in Africa by synthesizing empirical articles on the subject in Africa.

          Methods

          In this scoping review, a systematic search of five electronic research databases—PubMed, SCOPUS, CINHAL Complete, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and APA PsycInfo—was conducted to identify relevant articles conducted in Africa on euthanasia. After deduplication with the Rayyan software, the retrieved literature were screened for eligibility, and only eligible articles were included in the review. Relevant data from these articles were extracted and analyzed using narrative synthesis.

          Results

          Only 14 articles reporting empirical studies, conducted in Africa, and published in English, were included in the review after a rigorous screening process. The review shows a wide rejection of euthanasia, but there is not much resistance to passive euthanasia, that is, withholding/withdrawing life‐saving medical care from a terminally ill patient, mostly due to advanced age of the patient and the incurability of the illness. Many factors, such as religion, profession, and age help in shaping the way an individual view and understand PAS/E. Professionals take the patient's clinical condition and sociocultural context into consideration when making decisions about end‐of‐life care. The sociocultural context did not favor PAS/E.

          Conclusion

          Euthanasia will continue to be a subject of controversy and debate in Africa and elsewhere. The majority of Africans hold the duty of care and preservation of life as the hallmark of medical practice, which informs the wide rejection of PAS/E.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics Translated title: 执行范围界定审查: 为护理和助产学生、临床医生、研究人员及学者提供实用指南

            Aim The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. Design Discussion Paper. Data Sources Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR). Implications for nursing and midwifery Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. Conclusion This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. Impact With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. 目的 本研究旨在讨论可用的方法论资源和最佳实践指南, 以便确定和执行涉及护理和助产政策、实践及研究的范围审查。 设计 讨论稿。 数据来源 参考最近更新的JBI范围审查指南 (2020年) 以及系统审查和荟萃分析范围审查扩展的首选报告项目 (PRISMA‐ScR) , 以便探讨最佳实践的范围审查程序。 护理和助产学启示 范围审查可用于合成证据, 目前越来越普遍。其主要用于解决大量研究问题, 并汇集通过不同来源获得的证据。范围审查是一种有用的证据合成方式, 适用于护理和助产程序, 并可为研究人员提供机会, 帮助其审查广泛的证据和资源。然而, 仍应严格执行范围审查程序, 且应保证其透明度。 结论 本研究可为研究人员、临床医师提供指导和建议, 帮助其合成证据, 并在护理和助产领域应用范围审查方法。 影响 伴随着范围审查日益普及, 多个学术和临床学科人员提出应保证方法的严谨性、透明度和适当性, 包括护理和助产学。本讨论稿的重点在于范围审查的各组成部分, 包括: 提出研究问题和目标; 制定方案; 确定资格标准和拟议搜索方法; 寻找和选择证据; 提取和分析证据; 展示结果以及概述护理和助产领域的具体证据。此外, 讨论内容包括方法选择时间和评论发表方法。此方法适用于护理和助产学科, 可用于协助护理和/或助产学生、临床医生、研究人员和学术人员。
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The value of autonomy in medical ethics

              This articles assesses the arguments that bioethicists have presented for the view that patient’ autonomy has value over and beyond its instrumental value in promoting the patients’ wellbeing. It argues that this view should be rejected and concludes that patients’ autonomy should be taken to have only instrumental value in medicine.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                k.kanmodi@tees.ac.uk
                Journal
                Health Sci Rep
                Health Sci Rep
                10.1002/(ISSN)2398-8835
                HSR2
                Health Science Reports
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2398-8835
                30 May 2023
                May 2023
                : 6
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/hsr2.v6.5 )
                : e1239
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Sociology Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto Nigeria
                [ 2 ] Department of Sociology University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa
                [ 3 ] School of Health and Life Sciences Teesside University Middlesbrough UK
                [ 4 ] Faculty of Dentistry University of Puthisastra Phnom Penh Cambodia
                [ 5 ] Cephas Health Research Initiative Inc Ibadan Nigeria
                [ 6 ] Department of Sociology Umaru Musa Yar'adua University Katsina Nigeria
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Puthisastra, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

                Email: k.kanmodi@ 123456tees.ac.uk

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-3826
                Article
                HSR21239
                10.1002/hsr2.1239
                10227490
                87e09202-5718-40a8-bb94-972ac32552b4
                © 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 March 2023
                : 19 February 2023
                : 19 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 14, Words: 7795
                Categories
                Narrative Review
                Narrative Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                May 2023
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.8 mode:remove_FC converted:30.05.2023

                africa,euthanasia,mercy killing,scoping review
                africa, euthanasia, mercy killing, scoping review

                Comments

                Comment on this article