A Helou1, A Wende, T Hecke, S Rohrmann, K Buser, M L Dierks. 1. Abteilung Epidemiologie, Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover. helou@epi.mh-hannover.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite eager public interest there have been few significant studies about the views of the German population on active euthanasia. It was our purpose to investigate, before undertaking a representative enquiry about this controversial and ethically sensitive topic, to what extent public opinion and the underlying norms, values and preferences can be adequately obtained by standardized data collection. COHORT AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary project group established a standardized written form of enquiry for measuring public opinion about active euthanasia. The test was performed on an anonymized convenience [corrected] sample of 110 persons living in North Germany. The questionnaires consisted of ten hypothetical cases, 11 potentially relevant viewpoints on likely decisions and eight frequently expressed arguments used in the debate for and against euthanasia. RESULTS: The reply rate to the questionnaire was 89% (n = 98; 37 men and 59 women, average age 39.5 [21-81] years). Agreement with active euthanasia in the various case examples ranged, according to context, from 85 to 93%. Active euthanasia was accepted by a clear majority, if preconditions of a voluntary decision by a mentally sound person and incurable, terminal disease (cancer) are cumulatively fulfilled. Otherwise it was rejected by most respondents. To a clear majority, active euthanasia implied both the chance that suffering would be shortened, but also the danger of misuse. Among the persons questioned those with professional experience of euthanasia were clearly more sceptical about active euthanasia than those without such experience. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized written questionnaire made it possible to obtain a differentiated picture of public opinion on active euthanasia. However, these data represent only a moment in the dynamic process of a norm being established within a society and must on no account be used as legitimizing active euthanasia by plebiscite.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite eager public interest there have been few significant studies about the views of the German population on active euthanasia. It was our purpose to investigate, before undertaking a representative enquiry about this controversial and ethically sensitive topic, to what extent public opinion and the underlying norms, values and preferences can be adequately obtained by standardized data collection. COHORT AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary project group established a standardized written form of enquiry for measuring public opinion about active euthanasia. The test was performed on an anonymized convenience [corrected] sample of 110 persons living in North Germany. The questionnaires consisted of ten hypothetical cases, 11 potentially relevant viewpoints on likely decisions and eight frequently expressed arguments used in the debate for and against euthanasia. RESULTS: The reply rate to the questionnaire was 89% (n = 98; 37 men and 59 women, average age 39.5 [21-81] years). Agreement with active euthanasia in the various case examples ranged, according to context, from 85 to 93%. Active euthanasia was accepted by a clear majority, if preconditions of a voluntary decision by a mentally sound person and incurable, terminal disease (cancer) are cumulatively fulfilled. Otherwise it was rejected by most respondents. To a clear majority, active euthanasia implied both the chance that suffering would be shortened, but also the danger of misuse. Among the persons questioned those with professional experience of euthanasia were clearly more sceptical about active euthanasia than those without such experience. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized written questionnaire made it possible to obtain a differentiated picture of public opinion on active euthanasia. However, these data represent only a moment in the dynamic process of a norm being established within a society and must on no account be used as legitimizing active euthanasia by plebiscite.
Authors: Reginald Deschepper; Robert Vander Stichele; Jan L Bernheim; Els De Keyser; Greta Van Der Kelen; Freddy Mortier; Luc Deliens Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.386