'Murder or Mercy?' an innovative module helping UK medical students to articulate their own ethical standpoints regarding end-of-life decisions

Objectives This student selected component (SSC) was designed to equip United Kingdom (UK) medical students to respond ethically and with sensitivity to requests they might receive as qualified doctors in regard to euthanasia and assisted dying. The aim was to expose students to relevant opinions and experiences and to provide opportunities to explore and justify their own views and rehearse ethical decision making in a safe learning environment. Method The module is delivered by specialists from a number of disciplines including law, theology, medicine and nursing, each providing students with a working knowledge allowing them to actively discuss cases, articulate their own views and practise ethical reasoning through group and individual study. Visits to local intensive care units, palliative care wards and hospices are integrated effectively with theory. Student assessment comprises a dissertation, student-led debate and reflective commentary. Module impact was evaluated by analysis of student coursework and a questionnaire. Results Students found the content stimulating and relevant to their future career and agreed that the module was well-structured and that learning outcomes were achieved. They greatly appreciated the clinical context provided by the visits and opportunities to apply ethical reasoning to real cases and to debate ethical issues with peers. Students reported an increased discernment of the ethical and legal position and practical considerations and a greater awareness of the range of professional and lay viewpoints held. Student perceptions were confirmed on analysis of their submitted coursework. Many participants were less strongly in favour of euthanasia and assisted dying on module completion than at the outset but all felt better equipped to justify their own viewpoint and to respond appropriately to patient requests. Conclusions The multi-disciplinary nature of this course is helpful in preparing students to deal effectively and sensitively with ethical dilemmas they will encounter in their medical career. Use of an integrated, learner-centred approach equips students to actively engage with their peers in discussion of such issues and to formulate and defend their own position.

'Conditional candour' and 'knowing me': an interpretive description study on patient preferences for physician behaviours during end-of-life communication

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' preferences for physician behaviours during end-of-life communication.

METHODS: We used interpretive description methods to analyse data from semistructured, one-on-one interviews with patients admitted to general medical wards at three Canadian tertiary care hospitals. Study recruitment took place from October 2012 to August 2013. We used a purposive, maximum variation sampling approach to recruit hospitalised patients aged ≥55 years with a high risk of mortality within 6-12 months, and with different combinations of the following demographic variables: race (Caucasian vs non-Caucasian), gender and diagnosis (cancer vs non-cancer).

RESULTS: A total of 16 participants were recruited, most of whom (69%) were women and 70% had a non-cancer diagnosis. Two major concepts regarding helpful physician behaviour during end-of-life conversations emerged: (1) 'knowing me', which reflects the importance of acknowledging the influence of family roles and life history on values and priorities expressed during end-of-life communication, and (2) 'conditional candour', which describes a process of information exchange that includes an assessment of patients' readiness, being invited to the conversation, and sensitive delivery of information.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients prefer a nuanced approach to truth telling when having end-of-life discussions with their physician. This may have important implications for clinical practice and end-of-life communication training initiatives.