Kim, I have been unable to access the original Journal of Medical Ethics article but I was able to obtain the following Abstract from the publishers via PubMed which I believe would be OK to reproduce here to aid in this discussion.

"Abstract
Background and Aims The prevalence of religious faith among doctors and its relationship with decision-making in end-of-life care is not well documented. The impact of ethnic differences on this is also poorly understood. This study compares ethnicity and religious faith in the medical and general UK populations, and reports on their associations with ethically controversial decisions taken when providing care to dying patients. Method A postal survey of 3733 UK medical practitioners, of whom 2923 reported on the care of their last patient who died. Findings Specialists in care of the elderly were somewhat more likely to be Hindu or Muslim than other doctors; palliative care specialists were somewhat more likely to be Christian, religious and 'white' than others. Ethnicity was largely unrelated to rates of reporting ethically controversial decisions. Independently of speciality, doctors who described themselves as non-religious were more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life, and to have discussed these decisions with patients judged to have the capacity to participate in discussions. Speciality was independently related to wide variations in the reporting of decisions taken with some intent to end life, with doctors in 'other hospital' specialities being almost 10 times as likely to report this when compared with palliative medicine specialists, regardless of religious faith. Conclusions Greater acknowledgement of the relationship of doctors' values with clinical decision-making is advocated."

The critical statement in the Abstract which to me still remains ambiguous until the entire article is reviewed is the following: "doctors who described themselves as non-religious were more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life, and to have discussed these decisions with patients judged to have the capacity to participate in discussions." Does this mean that those "non-religious" doctors themselves had initiated a discussion regarding a method to cause the patient to die prematurely with those patients "who had the capacity to participate in discussions" and for those patients who agreed with the method and the action, those doctors would have then provided "continuous deep sedation until death"? Does the statement, on the other hand mean, that it was the patient that initiated the request for a method to end life prematurely and it was those doctors who were "non-religious" who were more likely to have reported that they did follow the patient's request? The latter makes more ethical sense. The former where the doctor initiates the discussion raises some ethical questions. But, unlike what I initially inferred from the MedScape article, the end-of-life decision itself was NOT being made by the physician. ..Maurice.

Kim, the reaction of the very religious doctors to avoid discussing options to "help hasten the end of life for their patients" is certainly consistent with surveys which found that the more religious patient will avoid a premature death and look for a miracle in their final days of illness and request more tests and treatments despite their therapeutic futility. A good review of one such study written in the Journal of the American Medical Association from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute can be found in the ABC News site: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7105959&page=1 and the review of the findings from the Institute itself can be found at the following link: http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/2009/study-finds-link-between-religious-coping-and-use-of-aggressive-treatment-as-advanced-cancer-patients-near-death.html.

As I have said, physician's instilling their own religious views into the decisions to be make by their patient's is unethical. Also unethical in the doctor-patient relationship would be for the doctor to ignore to present to the patient some option which others have taken but which is against the physician's own moral and religious values. Instead such a religious physician could and should frankly tell the patient about the option which has been used by others but the physician can tell the patient that if the patient selects such an option, the physician could not participate and would try to find another physician who would agree with the patient's decision.

An answer to the conflict between the patient and the doctor in terms of religious values, as I may have written elsewhere, is one presented in the past by ethicist Robert Veatch who appears to encourage patients to attempt to select their physicians, if possible, with the same religious values as their own. Certainly, however, it would be appropriate at some point in the doctor-patient interaction but while the patient is still healthy, for the patient to bring up end-of-life issues with their doctor and try to understand their physician's views. This would be particularly important if the doctor failed to bring up the issue earlier.

On an upcoming Question, I would like to bring up the issue of alternative models of doctor-patient relationships including the listing of Robert Veatch's models. ..Maurice.