The study was designed to compare and contrast responses of two groups of nurses to situational case studies relative to death and dying, with particular emphasis on euthanasia. One group of nurses was comprised of selected faculty of the 33 member universities of the Nurse Faculty Research Development in the Midwest. The second group of study participants was selected staff nurses of hospitals utilized by each of the universities in the Nurse Faculty Research Development in the Midwest. Special consideration was given to demographic data relative to age, highest level of education attained, marital status, number of classroom hours spent in the study of death, dying, and euthanasia during the basic nursing program, and present work assignment.The population of the study consisted of a total of 184 academic and staff nurses. Ninety of the nurses participating in the study were faculty members of institutions of higher education, and 94 nurses were staff nurses in hospitals utilized by the institutions of higher education.A search of the literature revealed no instrument dealing with euthanasia as it related to the nurse. An opinionnaire was designed specifically for the study because of a lack of an instrument in the area of euthanasia.The data collected from the opinionnaires were developed into a series of tables. The tables were designed to illustrate the number and percentage of academic and staff nurses responding to each situation in the opinionnaire. A comparison was made of the responses of the academic and staff nurses to determine similarities or dissimilarities in the response patterns.Conclusions based upon the review of the literature and findings of the study were:1. Staff nurses have more formal education relating to euthanasia than academic nurses.2. The number of classroom hours spent in the study of death and dying during basic nursing education has increased within the past ten years.3. Staff and academic nurses support the right of parents to make determinations regarding procedures utilized with infants that result in euthanasia.4. The greater number of nurses do not support the conclusion that the removal of life-support systems would be murder.5. A consensus of opinion does not exist between academic and staff nurses regarding the authority of a physician to determine which individual would have priority in the use of a hemodialysis machine. 6. There is an absence of agreement among academic and staff nurses regarding the allocation of scarce resources such as blood. 7. A majority of both academic and staff nurses agree that orders which would result in passive euthanasia could be followed, whereas few academic or staff nurses would follow an order which would result in active euthanasia.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/174884 |
| Date | 03 June 2011 |
| Creators | Babcock, Patricia Ann |
| Contributors | Riegle, Jack D. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | 4, xi, 117 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds