Practising member of a faith group (67.9 ). About half (50.9 ) were generally practice, a proportion constant with 2006 New Zealand healthcare workforce statistics.19 A higher proportion of respondents Orange Yellow S web indicated that they would answer honestly, to varying degrees, each question about end-of-life practices (see table 2). A comparison of questions 1 and two (table two) indicates that slightly extra respondents felt that they would answer honestly queries with regards to withdrawing remedy than questions about prescribing drugs, even though the intention in each case was to hasten death (McNemar test, p0.001). For the remaining questions, the implicit intent of each and every action asked about (and thus its prospective legal and skilled consequences) seemed to dictate the proportion of respondents willing to provide sincere answers about end-of-life practices: the two lowest rates of willingness to provide sincere answers were for inquiries 5 and eight, about actions with all the intention of hastening death (ie, explicitly about euthanasia); conversely, much more respondents felt they could be prepared to provide sincere answers about essentially identical actions exactly where the possibility of hastening death was taken into account, but exactly where there was no intention to hasten death (concerns three and 6).Results In the 800 surveys sent out, 590 (73.8 ) had been returned; nevertheless, 91 of these noted unwillingness to take element, withTable 1 Calculation in the `honesty score’ Prepared to give an honest answer Yes No 3 3 -1 -Question about end-of-life practices When the following questions were inside 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 with all the explicit intention of hastening the finish of that patient’s life two. Can you recall causing the death of a patient by withdrawing treatment with the explicit intention of hastening the end of that patient’s life With reference to the death of a precise patient (ie, named patient), did you withhold or withdraw treatment: 3. Taking into account the possibility that this would hasten the patient’s death four. Partly to hasten the patient’s death 5. With the explicit intention of hastening the patient’s death With reference towards the death of a specific 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 eight. With the explicit intention of hastening the patient’s death1 2-3 -2 -1 2-3 -2 -Points are allocated in line with the prospective riskiness of supplying an honest answer to each and every question. Thus, as an example, willingness to answer query 1 honestly is scored extremely because it could possibly lead to prosecution, and unwillingness is not very penalised mainly because reluctance to take such a threat is understandable. The honesty scores usually are not intended to show relative distinction nor supply any indication of your 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:ten.1136bmjopen-2013-NZ doctors’ willingness to give honest answers about end-of-life practicesTable 2 Number and percentage of respondents indicating they could be prepared to answer honestly for each and every query about end-of-life practices Would you answer honestly inquiries asking when you had: (1) (2) (3) (4) (five) (six) (7) (eight) Prescribed drugs (for suppl.