Practising member of a faith group (67.9 ). Around half (50.9 ) were in general practice, a proportion consistent with 2006 New Zealand healthcare workforce statistics.19 A high proportion of respondents indicated that they would answer honestly, to varying degrees, every single question about end-of-life practices (see table 2). A comparison of concerns 1 and two (table 2) indicates that slightly more respondents felt that they would answer honestly concerns relating to withdrawing treatment than concerns about prescribing drugs, although the intention in each case was to hasten death (McNemar test, p0.001). For the remaining inquiries, the implicit intent of every single action asked about (and hence its prospective legal and professional consequences) seemed to dictate the proportion of respondents prepared to supply truthful answers about end-of-life practices: the two lowest rates of willingness to supply sincere answers have been for inquiries five and eight, about actions using the intention of hastening death (ie, explicitly about euthanasia); conversely, far more respondents felt they could be willing to supply truthful answers about essentially identical actions exactly where the MedChemExpress OT-R antagonist 1 possibility of hastening death was taken into account, but exactly where there was no intention to hasten death (questions 3 and six).Results With the 800 surveys sent out, 590 (73.eight ) were returned; nonetheless, 91 of these noted unwillingness to take aspect, withTable 1 Calculation on the `honesty score’ Prepared to offer an truthful answer Yes No 3 three -1 -Question about end-of-life practices In the event the following inquiries were in a reputable survey, would you answer honestly 1. Can you recall causing the death of a patient by the use of a drug prescribed, supplied or administered by you using the explicit intention of hastening the end of that patient’s life 2. Are you able to recall causing the death of a patient by withdrawing treatment with all the explicit intention of hastening the end of that patient’s life With reference towards the death of a precise patient (ie, named patient), did you withhold or withdraw remedy: 3. Taking into account the possibility that this would hasten the patient’s death 4. Partly to hasten the patient’s death 5. Using the explicit intention of hastening the patient’s death With reference towards the death of a distinct patient (ie, named patient), did you intensify the alleviation of pain and suffering: 6. Taking into account the possibility that this would hasten the patient’s death 7. Partly to hasten the patient’s death 8. Using the explicit intention of hastening the patient’s death1 2-3 -2 -1 2-3 -2 -Points are allocated based on the possible riskiness of delivering an truthful answer to each query. As a result, one example is, willingness to answer question 1 honestly is scored extremely because it could possibly lead to prosecution, and unwillingness is just not hugely penalised mainly because reluctance to take such a danger is understandable. The honesty scores are not intended to show relative difference nor give any indication of the absolute likelihood of answering honestly or dishonestly. Merry AF, Moharib M, Devcich DA, et al. BMJ PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21330032 Open 2013;3:e002598. doi:10.1136bmjopen-2013-NZ doctors’ willingness to provide honest answers about end-of-life practicesTable 2 Quantity and percentage of respondents indicating they will be willing to answer honestly for each and every query about end-of-life practices Would you answer honestly concerns asking in case you had: (1) (2) (three) (4) (five) (6) (7) (8) Prescribed drugs (for suppl.