Literature DB >> 12886491

[Attitudes towards professional euthanasia in the range between grement in the society and personal preferences--results of a representative examination of the German general population].

Christina Schröder1, Gabriele Schmutzer, Antje Klaiberg, Elmar Brähler.   

Abstract

Several surveys of the German population concerning the attitude towards euthanasia in patients with terminal illness yielded contradictory results, ranging from high acquisition to high refusal rates. After a critical discussion of the methodological concepts of these investigations, we present the results of a representative study of 1957 German persons (age range: 14 - 96 years) which was performed by the institute USUMA in February 2001. Four different types of euthanasia were included in the study: active, passive, and indirect euthanasia as well as physician's assisted suicide. The affirmative response categories were "declared will and unbearable pain", "declared will", "referred will", and "in the responsibility of the physician". Additionally, we asked to state the personal preference in the case of an own incurable illness. The resulting frequency distributions stress the autonomy of the patients (declared will) and the legal forms of professional euthanasia (passive and indirect euthanasia), independent from the degree of pain. The rank order of the hypothetic personal preferences was: passive euthanasia (26.1 %), active euthanasia (21.1 %), indirect euthanasia (13.1 %) and assisted suicide (6.2 %). For each category the hypothetic personal will to utilize euthanasia personally is markedly lower than the consent to legalize euthanasia in the society. This points to a diminished readiness of the population to seek for euthanasia. Persons aged 60 years and above deny all types of euthanasia significantly more often than younger persons. Persons with subjectively bad health status prefer the category "in the responsibility of the physician" more often than healthy subjects. The representative study proves that there is no polarized public opinion concerning euthanasia, rather there is a picture of high complexity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12886491     DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-40949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol        ISSN: 0937-2032


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Transactional model of suicidal behavior in the elderly].

Authors:  S Schaller
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.281

2.  Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47 countries.

Authors:  Joachim Cohen; Paul Van Landeghem; Nico Carpentier; Luc Deliens
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  [Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide : Attitudes of physicians and nurses].

Authors:  J Zenz; M Tryba; M Zenz
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.107

4.  A "little bit illegal"? Withholding and withdrawing of mechanical ventilation in the eyes of German intensive care physicians.

Authors:  Sabine Beck; Andreas van de Loo; Stella Reiter-Theil
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2007-10-16

Review 5.  Determinants of acceptance of end-of-life interventions: a comparison between withdrawing life-prolonging treatment and euthanasia in Austria.

Authors:  Erwin Stolz; Franziska Großschädl; Hannes Mayerl; Éva Rásky; Wolfgang Freidl
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Factors associated with the rejection of active euthanasia: a survey among the general public in Austria.

Authors:  Willibald J Stronegger; Nathalie T Burkert; Franziska Grossschädl; Wolfgang Freidl
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Physician-Assisted Dying: Acceptance by Physicians Only for Patients Close to Death.

Authors:  Julia Zenz; Michael Tryba; Michael Zenz
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2014-12-12

8.  Attitudes towards assisted suicide and euthanasia among care-dependent older adults (50+) in Austria: the role of socio-demographics, religiosity, physical illness, psychological distress, and social isolation.

Authors:  Erwin Stolz; Hannes Mayerl; Peter Gasser-Steiner; Wolfgang Freidl
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 2.652

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.