OBJECTIVE: To determine public attitudes toward the right to die, euthanasia and related end-of-life decisions. DESIGN: Mail survey based on telephone numbers randomly selected by computer. SETTING: Edmonton. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1347 computer-generated, randomly selected telephone numbers called between February and June 1992, 902 individuals were reached, and 500 eligible contacts (55%) agreed to fill out the mailed questionnaire based on 12 vignettes involving end-of-life decisions. A total of 356 usable questionnaires (71%) were subsequently returned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes toward end-of-life decisions including withdrawal of life support, euthanasia, chronic suffering and the right to die, living wills and family involvement in decision making for incompetent individuals. Comments and demographic data were also solicited. RESULTS: Of the respondents 84% supported a family's right to withdraw life support from a patient in a persistent coma, and 90% supported a mentally competent patient's right to request that life support be withdrawn. Active euthanasia was supported by 65% for only patients experiencing severe pain and terminal illness. There was marked opposition to euthanasia for patients in other circumstances, such as an elderly disabled person who feels he or she is a burden on relatives (opposed by 65%), a patient with chronic depression resistant to treatment (by 75%) or an elderly person no longer satisfied with life and who has various minor physical ailments (by 83%). In all, 63% of the respondents felt that legalization of euthanasia for terminal illnesses would lead to euthanasia for many other, unsupported reasons, and 34% supported legislation to prohibit euthanasia in all situations. CONCLUSIONS: Public support for the right to die varies depending on the circumstances of the patient. The single most significant factor determining attitudes was the level of religious activity. The family's wishes were an important factor in end-of-life decisions for patients unable to communicate their desires. Both the general public and physicians should be primary participants in determining legislation regarding the right to die.
OBJECTIVE: To determine public attitudes toward the right to die, euthanasia and related end-of-life decisions. DESIGN: Mail survey based on telephone numbers randomly selected by computer. SETTING: Edmonton. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1347 computer-generated, randomly selected telephone numbers called between February and June 1992, 902 individuals were reached, and 500 eligible contacts (55%) agreed to fill out the mailed questionnaire based on 12 vignettes involving end-of-life decisions. A total of 356 usable questionnaires (71%) were subsequently returned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes toward end-of-life decisions including withdrawal of life support, euthanasia, chronic suffering and the right to die, living wills and family involvement in decision making for incompetent individuals. Comments and demographic data were also solicited. RESULTS: Of the respondents 84% supported a family's right to withdraw life support from a patient in a persistent coma, and 90% supported a mentally competent patient's right to request that life support be withdrawn. Active euthanasia was supported by 65% for only patients experiencing severe pain and terminal illness. There was marked opposition to euthanasia for patients in other circumstances, such as an elderly disabled person who feels he or she is a burden on relatives (opposed by 65%), a patient with chronic depression resistant to treatment (by 75%) or an elderly person no longer satisfied with life and who has various minor physical ailments (by 83%). In all, 63% of the respondents felt that legalization of euthanasia for terminal illnesses would lead to euthanasia for many other, unsupported reasons, and 34% supported legislation to prohibit euthanasia in all situations. CONCLUSIONS: Public support for the right to die varies depending on the circumstances of the patient. The single most significant factor determining attitudes was the level of religious activity. The family's wishes were an important factor in end-of-life decisions for patients unable to communicate their desires. Both the general public and physicians should be primary participants in determining legislation regarding the right to die.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Edmonton (AB); Empirical Approach
Authors: R L McIntyre; C J Stolman; W Toreki; M Burnhill; M S Henifin; G Rhoads; D Swee; M Trontell; J Hammond; M Strong Journal: Trends Health Care Law Ethics Date: 1992
Authors: Udo Schüklenk; Johannes J M van Delden; Jocelyn Downie; Sheila A M McLean; Ross Upshur; Daniel Weinstock Journal: Bioethics Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.898
Authors: Veronica Dussel; Steven Joffe; Joanne M Hilden; Jan Watterson-Schaeffer; Jane C Weeks; Joanne Wolfe Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2010-03
Authors: Jean Carlet; Lambertus G Thijs; Massimo Antonelli; Joan Cassell; Peter Cox; Nicholas Hill; Charles Hinds; Jorge Manuel Pimentel; Konrad Reinhart; Boyd Taylor Thompson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-04-20 Impact factor: 17.440