Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students
Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical ethics 2007-05, Vol.33 (5), p.261-265 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 265 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 261 |
| container_title | Journal of medical ethics |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Sham, C O Cheng, Y W Ho, K W Lai, P H Lo, L W Wan, H L Wong, C Y Yeung, Y N Yuen, S H Wong, A Y C |
| description | Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated. Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR. Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/jme.2005.014423 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2598130</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A164558197</galeid><jstor_id>27719854</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A164558197</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b552t-5048d3e82da0df057d8feb316279f146aa45e30d0c43cc6ae543493441d6bc863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc2P1CAYxhujccfVsydNExMPJp19KVDoHkzW0XU1m92LH0dCgc4ytrACNfrfS9Nx_LjIhZDnx8vz8BTFYwRrhHBzshvNugaga0CE1PhOsUKE4YrUlN0tVoChqRoOcFQ8iHEHedW8vV8cIUYYUIBVcfXaV86nKpg4RWWTTKbURtlovTst040pZUo2TdrE0vflaLRVciil06Xzrvp1jjPhUnxY3OvlEM2j_X5cfDx_82FzUV1ev323ObusOkrrVFEgXGPDay1B90CZ5r3pMGpq1vaINFISajBoUAQr1UhDCSYtJgTpplO8wcfFy2Xu7dRlDyq_HeQgboMdZfghvLTib8XZG7H130RNW44w5AHP9wOC_zqZmMRoozLDIJ3xUxQMCGW0xRl89g-481NwOZxAjCNgiAPLVLVQWzkYYZ3yLpnvSflhMFsjcvbNtThDDaGUo3bmTxZeBR9jMP3BOgIxNytys2JuVizN5htP_0z8m99XmYEnC7CLyYeDXjOGWp7_72DRxmztoMvwRTQMMyquPm3E-fsc5tXnCzFbfLHw3bj7r7ufUQLDrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781071807</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Sham, C O ; Cheng, Y W ; Ho, K W ; Lai, P H ; Lo, L W ; Wan, H L ; Wong, C Y ; Yeung, Y N ; Yuen, S H ; Wong, A Y C</creator><creatorcontrib>Sham, C O ; Cheng, Y W ; Ho, K W ; Lai, P H ; Lo, L W ; Wan, H L ; Wong, C Y ; Yeung, Y N ; Yuen, S H ; Wong, A Y C</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated. Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR. Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-6800</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-4257</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014423</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17470500</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMETDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Attitude to Death ; Attitudes ; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes ; Bioethics ; Cardiac arrest ; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation ; Clinical Ethics ; CPR ; Critical care ; Death ; Decision Making ; Diseases ; DNR ; Do not resuscitate ; Do-not-resuscitate orders ; Ethics, Professional ; Family members ; Female ; Health care industry ; Hong Kong ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Male ; Medical education ; Medical prognosis ; Medical students ; Middle Aged ; Older adults ; Patient Advocacy ; Pneumonia ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Public opinion ; Quality of life ; Questionnaires ; Response rates ; Resuscitation orders ; Resuscitation Orders - ethics ; Resuscitation Orders - psychology ; Social Values ; Statistical analysis ; Students ; Students, Medical - psychology ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical ethics, 2007-05, Vol.33 (5), p.261-265</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 by the Journal of Medical Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright: 2007 Copyright 2007 by the Journal of Medical Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b552t-5048d3e82da0df057d8feb316279f146aa45e30d0c43cc6ae543493441d6bc863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b552t-5048d3e82da0df057d8feb316279f146aa45e30d0c43cc6ae543493441d6bc863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jme.bmj.com/content/33/5/261.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jme.bmj.com/content/33/5/261.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,230,314,723,776,780,799,881,3183,23550,27901,27902,53766,53768,57992,58225,77342,77373</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17470500$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sham, C O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Y W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, K W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, P H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo, L W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wan, H L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, C Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeung, Y N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuen, S H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, A Y C</creatorcontrib><title>Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students</title><title>Journal of medical ethics</title><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><description>Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated. Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR. Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Attitude to Death</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Cardiac arrest</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</subject><subject>Clinical Ethics</subject><subject>CPR</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Death</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Diseases</subject><subject>DNR</subject><subject>Do not resuscitate</subject><subject>Do-not-resuscitate orders</subject><subject>Ethics, Professional</subject><subject>Family members</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Hong Kong</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Older adults</subject><subject>Patient Advocacy</subject><subject>Pneumonia</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Resuscitation orders</subject><subject>Resuscitation Orders - ethics</subject><subject>Resuscitation Orders - psychology</subject><subject>Social Values</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students, Medical - psychology</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0306-6800</issn><issn>1473-4257</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc2P1CAYxhujccfVsydNExMPJp19KVDoHkzW0XU1m92LH0dCgc4ytrACNfrfS9Nx_LjIhZDnx8vz8BTFYwRrhHBzshvNugaga0CE1PhOsUKE4YrUlN0tVoChqRoOcFQ8iHEHedW8vV8cIUYYUIBVcfXaV86nKpg4RWWTTKbURtlovTst040pZUo2TdrE0vflaLRVciil06Xzrvp1jjPhUnxY3OvlEM2j_X5cfDx_82FzUV1ev323ObusOkrrVFEgXGPDay1B90CZ5r3pMGpq1vaINFISajBoUAQr1UhDCSYtJgTpplO8wcfFy2Xu7dRlDyq_HeQgboMdZfghvLTib8XZG7H130RNW44w5AHP9wOC_zqZmMRoozLDIJ3xUxQMCGW0xRl89g-481NwOZxAjCNgiAPLVLVQWzkYYZ3yLpnvSflhMFsjcvbNtThDDaGUo3bmTxZeBR9jMP3BOgIxNytys2JuVizN5htP_0z8m99XmYEnC7CLyYeDXjOGWp7_72DRxmztoMvwRTQMMyquPm3E-fsc5tXnCzFbfLHw3bj7r7ufUQLDrw</recordid><startdate>200705</startdate><enddate>200705</enddate><creator>Sham, C O</creator><creator>Cheng, Y W</creator><creator>Ho, K W</creator><creator>Lai, P H</creator><creator>Lo, L W</creator><creator>Wan, H L</creator><creator>Wong, C Y</creator><creator>Yeung, Y N</creator><creator>Yuen, S H</creator><creator>Wong, A Y C</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200705</creationdate><title>Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students</title><author>Sham, C O ; Cheng, Y W ; Ho, K W ; Lai, P H ; Lo, L W ; Wan, H L ; Wong, C Y ; Yeung, Y N ; Yuen, S H ; Wong, A Y C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b552t-5048d3e82da0df057d8feb316279f146aa45e30d0c43cc6ae543493441d6bc863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Attitude to Death</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Cardiac arrest</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</topic><topic>Clinical Ethics</topic><topic>CPR</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Death</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Diseases</topic><topic>DNR</topic><topic>Do not resuscitate</topic><topic>Do-not-resuscitate orders</topic><topic>Ethics, Professional</topic><topic>Family members</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Hong Kong</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Older adults</topic><topic>Patient Advocacy</topic><topic>Pneumonia</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Resuscitation orders</topic><topic>Resuscitation Orders - ethics</topic><topic>Resuscitation Orders - psychology</topic><topic>Social Values</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students, Medical - psychology</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sham, C O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Y W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, K W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, P H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lo, L W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wan, H L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, C Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeung, Y N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuen, S H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, A Y C</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sham, C O</au><au>Cheng, Y W</au><au>Ho, K W</au><au>Lai, P H</au><au>Lo, L W</au><au>Wan, H L</au><au>Wong, C Y</au><au>Yeung, Y N</au><au>Yuen, S H</au><au>Wong, A Y C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><date>2007-05</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>265</epage><pages>261-265</pages><issn>0306-6800</issn><eissn>1473-4257</eissn><coden>JMETDR</coden><abstract>Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated. Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR. Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</pub><pmid>17470500</pmid><doi>10.1136/jme.2005.014423</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0306-6800 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical ethics, 2007-05, Vol.33 (5), p.261-265 |
| issn | 0306-6800 1473-4257 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2598130 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Adult Age Factors Aged Aged, 80 and over Attitude of Health Personnel Attitude to Death Attitudes Beliefs, opinions and attitudes Bioethics Cardiac arrest Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Clinical Ethics CPR Critical care Death Decision Making Diseases DNR Do not resuscitate Do-not-resuscitate orders Ethics, Professional Family members Female Health care industry Hong Kong Humans Illnesses Male Medical education Medical prognosis Medical students Middle Aged Older adults Patient Advocacy Pneumonia Practice Guidelines as Topic Public opinion Quality of life Questionnaires Response rates Resuscitation orders Resuscitation Orders - ethics Resuscitation Orders - psychology Social Values Statistical analysis Students Students, Medical - psychology Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Do-not-resuscitate decision: the attitudes of medical and non-medical students |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A57%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do-not-resuscitate%20decision:%20the%20attitudes%20of%20medical%20and%20non-medical%20students&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20ethics&rft.au=Sham,%20C%20O&rft.date=2007-05&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=265&rft.pages=261-265&rft.issn=0306-6800&rft.eissn=1473-4257&rft.coden=JMETDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jme.2005.014423&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA164558197%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781071807&rft_id=info:pmid/17470500&rft_galeid=A164558197&rft_jstor_id=27719854&rfr_iscdi=true |