Dominic R Mangino1, Talia Bernhard1, Paul Wakim2, Scott Yh Kim3. 1. Department of Bioethics (DRM, TB, SYK), Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service (PW), Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Department of Bioethics (DRM, TB, SYK), Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: scott.kim@nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Advance request euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (AR-EAS) in persons with dementia is highly controversial. Results of typical public opinion surveys may not reflect the ethical and practical issues involved in the practice. We tested the impact of incorporating such issues in the assessment of public attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS. DESIGN: Online survey (April 27-30, 2020) of 1,711 adults recruited via CloudResearch PrimePanel, matched to U.S. population in age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, education, household income, and political affiliation. After assessing initial attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS, respondents viewed one of six randomly assigned scenarios depicting an ethical or practical issue in AR-EAS; acceptability of EAS in each scenario as well as general attitudes toward AR-EAS legalization were then elicited. RESULTS: Approximately 54.4% initially agreed/strongly agreed with AR-EAS legalization; agreement was associated with lower dementia quality-of-life rating, younger age, not being religious, liberal politics, and $75,000-$99,999 income range. After viewing the scenarios, a minority in each scenario arm found the AR-EAS depicted acceptable (20.7%-39.1%; p<0.0001 for all six arms, in comparison with initial legalization question response). Support (agree/strongly agree) for AR-EAS legalization after reading specific scenarios was generally lower (range 36.5%-49.3%; p≤0.0002); change in support for legalization was associated with initial support for legalization, acceptability of AR-EAS in the scenarios, dementia quality-of-life ratings, and race. CONCLUSION: Informing the public of the ethical and practical complexities in AR-EAS may have significant effects on their attitudes toward legalization. Future surveys should ensure that the public's views reflect sufficient exposure to these complexities. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Advance request euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (AR-EAS) in persons with dementia is highly controversial. Results of typical public opinion surveys may not reflect the ethical and practical issues involved in the practice. We tested the impact of incorporating such issues in the assessment of public attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS. DESIGN: Online survey (April 27-30, 2020) of 1,711 adults recruited via CloudResearch PrimePanel, matched to U.S. population in age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, education, household income, and political affiliation. After assessing initial attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS, respondents viewed one of six randomly assigned scenarios depicting an ethical or practical issue in AR-EAS; acceptability of EAS in each scenario as well as general attitudes toward AR-EAS legalization were then elicited. RESULTS: Approximately 54.4% initially agreed/strongly agreed with AR-EAS legalization; agreement was associated with lower dementia quality-of-life rating, younger age, not being religious, liberal politics, and $75,000-$99,999 income range. After viewing the scenarios, a minority in each scenario arm found the AR-EAS depicted acceptable (20.7%-39.1%; p<0.0001 for all six arms, in comparison with initial legalization question response). Support (agree/strongly agree) for AR-EAS legalization after reading specific scenarios was generally lower (range 36.5%-49.3%; p≤0.0002); change in support for legalization was associated with initial support for legalization, acceptability of AR-EAS in the scenarios, dementia quality-of-life ratings, and race. CONCLUSION: Informing the public of the ethical and practical complexities in AR-EAS may have significant effects on their attitudes toward legalization. Future surveys should ensure that the public's views reflect sufficient exposure to these complexities. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Matthew T Ballew; Matthew H Goldberg; Seth A Rosenthal; Abel Gustafson; Anthony Leiserowitz Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Marike E de Boer; Rose-Marie Dröes; Cees Jonker; Jan A Eefsting; Cees M P M Hertogh Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Eva Elizabeth Bolt; Marianne C Snijdewind; Dick L Willems; Agnes van der Heide; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Pauline S C Kouwenhoven; Natasja J H Raijmakers; Johannes J M van Delden; Judith A C Rietjens; Donald G van Tol; Suzanne van de Vathorst; Nienke de Graeff; Heleen A M Weyers; Agnes van der Heide; Ghislaine J M W van Thiel Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 2.652