Michael J Balboni1, Adam Sullivan2, Patrick T Smith3, Danish Zaidi3, Christine Mitchell3, James A Tulsky4, Daniel P Sulmasy5, Tyler J VanderWeele6, Tracy A Balboni7. 1. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: michael_balboni@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Palliative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Initiative on Health, Religion, and Spirituality within Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although religion often informs ethical judgments, little is known about the views of American clergy regarding controversial end-of-life ethical issues including allowing to die and physician aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide (PAD/PAS). OBJECTIVE: To describe the views of U.S. clergy concerning allowing to die and PAD/PAS. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 1665 nationally representative clergy between 8/2014 to 3/2015 (60% response rate). Outcome variables included beliefs about whether the terminally ill should ever be "allowed to die" and moral/legal opinions concerning PAD/PAS. RESULTS: Most U.S. clergy are Christian (98%). Clergy agreed that there are circumstances in which the terminally ill should be "allowed to die" (80%). A minority agreed that PAD/PAS was morally (28%) or legally (22%) acceptable. Mainline/Liberal Christian clergy were more likely to approve of the morality (56%) and legality (47%) of PAD/PAS, in contrast to all other clergy groups (6%-17%). Greater end-of-life medical knowledge was associated with moral disapproval of PAD/PAS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19, P = 0.03). Those reporting distrust in health care were less likely to oppose legalization of PAD/PAS (AOR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99, P < 0.02). Religious beliefs associated with disapproval of PAD/PAS included "life's value is not tied to the patient's quality of life" (AOR 2.12; 95% CI, 0.1.49-3.03, P < 0.001) and "only God numbers our days" (AOR 2.60; 95% CI, 1.77-3.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most U.S. clergy approve of "allowing to die" but reject the morality or legalization of PAD/PAS. Respectful discussion in public discourse should consider rather than ignore underlying religious reasons informing end-of-life controversies.
CONTEXT: Although religion often informs ethical judgments, little is known about the views of American clergy regarding controversial end-of-life ethical issues including allowing to die and physician aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide (PAD/PAS). OBJECTIVE: To describe the views of U.S. clergy concerning allowing to die and PAD/PAS. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 1665 nationally representative clergy between 8/2014 to 3/2015 (60% response rate). Outcome variables included beliefs about whether the terminally ill should ever be "allowed to die" and moral/legal opinions concerning PAD/PAS. RESULTS: Most U.S. clergy are Christian (98%). Clergy agreed that there are circumstances in which the terminally ill should be "allowed to die" (80%). A minority agreed that PAD/PAS was morally (28%) or legally (22%) acceptable. Mainline/Liberal Christian clergy were more likely to approve of the morality (56%) and legality (47%) of PAD/PAS, in contrast to all other clergy groups (6%-17%). Greater end-of-life medical knowledge was associated with moral disapproval of PAD/PAS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19, P = 0.03). Those reporting distrust in health care were less likely to oppose legalization of PAD/PAS (AOR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99, P < 0.02). Religious beliefs associated with disapproval of PAD/PAS included "life's value is not tied to the patient's quality of life" (AOR 2.12; 95% CI, 0.1.49-3.03, P < 0.001) and "only God numbers our days" (AOR 2.60; 95% CI, 1.77-3.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most U.S. clergy approve of "allowing to die" but reject the morality or legalization of PAD/PAS. Respectful discussion in public discourse should consider rather than ignore underlying religious reasons informing end-of-life controversies.
Authors: Farr A Curlin; Chinyere Nwodim; Jennifer L Vance; Marshall H Chin; John D Lantos Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Michael J Balboni; Adam Sullivan; Andrea C Enzinger; Patrick T Smith; Christine Mitchell; John R Peteet; James A Tulsky; Tyler VanderWeele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Tracy A Balboni; Lauren C Vanderwerker; Susan D Block; M Elizabeth Paulk; Christopher S Lathan; John R Peteet; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracy A Balboni; Michael Balboni; Andrea C Enzinger; Kathleen Gallivan; M Elizabeth Paulk; Alexi Wright; Karen Steinhauser; Tyler J VanderWeele; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sarah E Koss; Ross Weissman; Vinca Chow; Patrick T Smith; Bethany Slack; Vitaliy Voytenko; Tracy A Balboni; Michael J Balboni Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2018-08