Between palliative care and euthanasia

Assisted life termination and truth telling to terminally ill patients - a cross-sectional study of public opinions in Israel

BACKGROUND

End-of-life decisions are highly complex socio-normative and ethical phenomena. The goal of this study was to provide an assessment of public opinions in Israel concerning aspects of end-of-life decisions.

METHODS

An online cross sectional study was performed in February 2020. The primary tool including items pertaining to death assistance and truth telling to patients. A sample of 515 participants representative of the adult Israeli population was obtained.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (71%) supports telling the entire truth to patients even in harsh conditions. Support for truth telling decreases with affiliation to religion, with as little as 40% support among ultra-orthodox. People with vocational education are the least supportive of truth telling. Concerning doctor assisted death, almost half (49%) of the sample were supportive. Opposition is positively associated with religiosity, with 90% of ultra-orthodox and 58% of religious participants opposing doctor-assisted death, compared to only 18% among seculars. Non-Jews were 3.35 times (95%CI: 1.90, 5.91) more likely to oppose doctor assisted death than Jews (p < .0001). An Interrelationship analysis crossing between attitudes revealed that the largest group (39%) was comprised of participants who support both ("autonomists").

CONCLUSIONS

Israelis are overwhelmingly supportive of truth telling to patients. In contrast, Israeli public opinions on doctor assisted death are divided. For both attitudes, religiousness plays a crucial role as a catalyst for conservatism and opposition to change. Almost a half of the public is also supportive of an autonomist approach that would allow patients to decide on ending their own lives.

Euthanasia embedded in palliative care. Responses to essentialistic criticisms of the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care

The Belgian model of 'integral' end-of-life care consists of universal access to palliative care (PC) and legally regulated euthanasia. As a first worldwide, the Flemish PC organisation has embedded euthanasia in its practice. However, some critics have declared the Belgian-model concepts of 'integral PC' and 'palliative futility' to fundamentally contradict the essence of PC. This article analyses the various essentialistic arguments for the incompatibility of euthanasia and PC. The empirical evidence from the euthanasia-permissive Benelux countries shows that since legalisation, carefulness (of decision making) at the end of life has improved and there have been no significant adverse 'slippery slope' effects. It is problematic that some critics disregard the empirical evidence as epistemologically irrelevant in a normative ethical debate. Next, rejecting euthanasia because its prevention was a founding principle of PC ignores historical developments. Further, critics' ethical positions depart from the PC tenet of patient centeredness by prioritising caregivers' values over patients' values. Also, many critics' canonical adherence to the WHO definition of PC, which has intention as the ethical criterion is objectionable. A rejection of the Belgian model on doctrinal grounds also has nefarious practical consequences such as the marginalisation of PC in euthanasia-permissive countries, the continuation of clandestine practices and problematic palliative sedation until death. In conclusion, major flaws of essentialistic arguments against the Belgian model include the disregard of empirical evidence, appeals to canonical and questionable definitions, prioritisation of caregiver perspectives over those of patients and rejection of a plurality of respectable views on decision making at the end of life.