BACKGROUND Austria has recently been embroiled in the complex debate on the legalization of measures to end life prematurely. Empirical data on end-of-life decisions made by Austrian physicians barely exists. This study is the first in Austria aimed at finding out how physicians generally approach and make end-of-life therapy decisions. METHODS The European end-of-life decisions (EURELD) questionnaire, translated and adapted by Schildmann et al., was used to conduct this cross-sectional postal survey. Questions on palliative care training, legal issues, and use of and satisfaction with palliative care were added. All Austrian specialists in hematology and oncology, a representative sample of doctors specialized in internal medicine, and a sample of general practitioners, were invited to participate in this anonymous postal survey. RESULTS Five hundred forty-eight questionnaires (response rate: 10.4%) were evaluated. 88.3% of participants had treated a patient who had died in the previous 12 months. 23% of respondents had an additional qualification in palliative medicine. The cause of death in 53.1% of patients was cancer, and 44.8% died at home. In 86.3% of cases, pain relief and / or symptom relief had been intensified. Further treatment had been withheld by 60.0%, and an existing treatment discontinued by 49.1% of respondents. In 5 cases, the respondents had prescribed, provided or administered a drug which had resulted in death. 51.3% of physicians said they would never carry out physician-assisted suicide (PAS), while 30.3% could imagine doing so under certain conditions. 38.5% of respondents supported the current prohibition of PAS, 23.9% opposed it, and 33.2% were undecided. 52.4% of physicians felt the legal situation with respect to measures to end life prematurely was ambiguous. An additional qualification in palliative medicine had no influence on measures taken, or attitudes towards PAS. CONCLUSIONS The majority of doctors perform symptom control in terminally ill patients. PAS is frequently requested but rarely carried out. Attending physicians felt the legal situation was ambiguous. Physicians should therefore receive training in current legislation relating to end-of-life choices and medical decisions. The data collected in this survey will help political decision-makers provide the necessary legal framework for end-of-life medical care.

中文翻译：

---

奥地利医生的生命终结决策-横断面研究。

背景技术奥地利最近卷入了关于过早终止生命的措施合法化的复杂辩论。几乎没有奥地利医生做出的关于寿命终止决策的经验数据。这项研究是奥地利的第一项研究，旨在发现医生通常如何处理和做出生命终止疗法的决定。方法采用Schildmann等人翻译和改编的欧洲寿命终了决策（EURELD）问卷进行了这一横断面邮政调查。增加了有关姑息治疗培训，法律问题以及姑息治疗的使用和满意度的问题。邀请了所有奥地利血液学和肿瘤学专家，代表性的内科医生样本以及全科医生样本参加这项匿名的邮政调查。结果评估了458份问卷（答复率为10.4％）。88.3％的参与者治疗了在过去12个月内死亡的患者。23％的受访者还具有姑息治疗的附加资格。53.1％的患者的死因是癌症，有44.8％的患者在家中死亡。在86.3％的病例中，疼痛缓解和/或症状缓解得到了加强。拒绝进一步治疗的比例为60.0％，而已有治疗的比例为49.1％。在5个案例中，受访者开具，提供或服用了导致死亡的药物。51.3％的医生表示，他们绝不会进行医生协助的自杀（PAS），而30.3％的医生可以想象在某些情况下会这样做。38.5％的受访者支持当前禁止使用PAS，23.9％的反对者支持33。2％不确定。52.4％的医生认为有关过早终止生命的措施的法律状况不明确。姑息治疗的其他资格对所采取的措施或对PAS的态度没有影响。结论大多数医生对绝症患者进行症状控制。PAS是经常提出的要求，但很少执行。主治医师认为法律情况不明确。因此，医师应接受有关寿命终止选择和医疗决定的现行法规方面的培训。本次调查收集的数据将帮助政治决策者为报废医疗提供必要的法律框架。姑息治疗的其他资格对所采取的措施或对PAS的态度没有影响。结论大多数医生对绝症患者进行症状控制。PAS是经常提出的要求，但很少执行。主治医师认为法律情况不明确。因此，医师应接受有关寿命终止选择和医疗决定的现行法规方面的培训。本次调查收集的数据将帮助政治决策者为报废医疗提供必要的法律框架。姑息治疗的其他资格对所采取的措施或对PAS的态度没有影响。结论大多数医生对绝症患者进行症状控制。PAS是经常提出的要求，但很少执行。主治医师认为法律情况不明确。因此，医师应接受有关寿命终止选择和医疗决定的现行法规方面的培训。本次调查收集的数据将帮助政治决策者为报废医疗提供必要的法律框架。因此，医师应接受有关寿命终止选择和医疗决定的现行法规方面的培训。本次调查收集的数据将帮助政治决策者为报废医疗提供必要的法律框架。因此，医师应接受有关寿命终止选择和医疗决定的现行法规方面的培训。本次调查收集的数据将帮助政治决策者为报废医疗提供必要的法律框架。