Content area
Full text
ABSTRACT
AIM: To determine socio-demographic factors associated with health professionals' understanding of the End of Life Choice Act (the Act), support for assisted dying (AD), and willingness to provide AD in New Zealand.
METHOD: Secondary analysis of two Manatū Hauora - Ministry of Health workforce surveys conducted in February and July 2021.
RESULTS: Our analysis showed (1) older health professionals (age>55) had a better overall understanding of the Act than their young colleagues (age<35), (2) female health professionals were less likely to support and be willing to provide AD, (3) Asian health professionals were less likely to support AD compared to their Pākehā/European counterparts, (4) nurses were more likely to support AD and be willing to provide AD when compared to medical practitioners, and (5) pharmacists were more willing to provide AD when compared to medical practitioners.
CONCLUSION: Several socio-demographic factors, including age, gender, ethnicity, and professional background, are significantly associated with health professionals' support and willingness to provide AD, with likely consequences for the AD workforce availability and service delivery in New Zealand. Future review of the Act could consider enhancing the roles of those professional groups with higher support and willingness to assist in providing AD services in caring for people requesting AD.
As of January 2023, Aotearoa New Zealand is among the 25 jurisdictions/countries that have legalised assisted dying (AD).1-3 The New Zealand End of Life Choice (EOLC) Act 2019 (the Act) came into force in November 2021 following a twelve-month implementation process. In New Zealand, AD practice encompasses euthanasia and physician-assisted dying, allowing a person with a terminal illness to request medication to end their life if they meet strict criteria.
As a recent addition to New Zealand health services, AD has implications for all health professionals. The Act stipulates that a health practitioner is entitled to conscientiously object to providing AD (Section 8[1] of the Act).4 Such practitioners are not legally required to disclose their conscientious objection; however, they do have a duty of care to respond when AD is raised. This duty includes informing the patient of their right to seek a replacement practitioner and providing them with information about AD (Sections 9[2] and 10[2] of the Act).4 This requirement highlights the necessity for all health professionals to...