Passive euthanasia

Faith and fate: Religious leaders' Bible, heaven, hell beliefs and end-of-life choices

Controversies surrounding end-of-life choices may be due to differences in congregational affiliation and beliefs about the Bible, heaven, and hell. Focusing on religious leaders (N = 1541), this study investigated how these factors are associated with attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide, allowing a patient to die by withholding treatment, and withdrawing treatment in favor of pain relief. Religious leaders affiliated with White liberal or moderate denominations were more supportive of these end-of-life choices compared to those affiliated with Roman Catholic; White conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist; and Black Protestant congregations. Literalist view of the Bible and belief in hell were significantly associated with less support across the three choices, whereas belief in heaven was significantly associated with less support for only physician-assisted suicide. This study highlights the varying significance of religious beliefs in understanding variations in views on end-of-life choices and sheds light on the moral distinction associated with various choices.

The Extent to Which the Wish to Donate One's Organs After Death Contributes to Life-Extension Arguments in Favour of Voluntary Active Euthanasia in the Terminally Ill: An Ethical Analysis

In terminally ill individuals who would otherwise end their own lives, active voluntary euthanasia (AVE) can be seen as life-extending rather than life-shortening. Accordingly, AVE supports key pro-euthanasia arguments (appeals to autonomy and beneficence) and meets certain sanctity of life objections. This paper examines the extent to which a terminally ill individual's wish to donate organs after death contributes to those life-extension arguments. It finds that, in a terminally ill individual who wishes to avoid experiencing life he considers to be not worth living, and who also wishes to donate organs after death, AVE maximizes the likelihood that such donations will occur. The paper finds that the wish to donate organs strengthens the appeals to autonomy and beneficence, and fortifies the meeting of certain sanctity of life objections, achieved by life-extension arguments, and also generates appeals to justice that form novel life-extension arguments in favour of AVE in this context.

What medical conditions lead to a request for euthanasia? A rapid scoping review

Background and Aims

Euthanasia is a controversial issue related to the right to die. Although euthanasia is mostly requested by terminally sick individuals, even in societies where it is legal, it is unclear what medical conditions lead to euthanasia requests. In this scoping review, we aimed to compile medical conditions for which euthanasia has been requested or performed around the world.

Methods

The review was preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Retrieved search results were screened and unrelated documents were excluded. Data on reasons for conducting or requesting euthanasia along with the study type, setting, and publication year were extracted from documents. Human development index and euthanasia legality were also extracted. Major medical fields were used to categorize reported reasons. Group discussions were conducted if needed for this categorization. An electronic search was undertaken in MEDLINE through PubMed for published documents covering the years January 2000 to September 2022.

Results

Out of 3323 records, a total of 197 papers were included. The most common medical conditions in euthanasia requests are cancer in a terminal phase (45.4%), Alzheimer's disease and dementia (19.8%), constant unbearable physical or mental suffering (19.8%), treatment-resistant mood disorders (12.2%), and advanced cardiovascular disorders (12.2%).

Conclusion

Reasons for euthanasia are mostly linked to chronic or terminal physical conditions. Psychiatric disorders also lead to a substantial proportion of euthanasia requests. This review can help to identify the features shared by conditions that lead to performing or requesting euthanasia.

Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) of Medical Professionals on Euthanasia: A Study From a Tertiary Care Centre in India

INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia or mercy killing has remained as a matter of extensive debate and ethical conflicts in the scientific literature. Discussions on this theme have got legal, religious, political and philosophical ramifications.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The present study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of medical professionals in a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

After taking prior approval from the institutional ethics committee a structured questionnaire was prepared and distributed among 200 consenting medical professionals in a tertiary care centre in the North-Western region of India.

RESULTS

50% of the respondents said that they were sure of the existing regulation on euthanasia in India. When gender differences were considered a significant difference (p=0.0147) was found between the two sexes regarding the alternate decision maker for deciding euthanasia. It was observed that there was a significant difference(p=0.0055) between those with the age more than 30 years and aged less than 30 years regarding the type of euthanasia that is justifiable.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, the percentage of doctors favouring euthanasia is higher than compared in previous studies. The view of euthanasia is highly variable in different studies. Even though passive euthanasia has been legalised recently, there is an apprehension that it might be misused.

The intractable problems with brain death and possible solutions

Brain death has been accepted worldwide medically and legally as the biological state of death of the organism. Nevertheless, the literature has described persistent problems with this acceptance ever since brain death was described. Many of these problems are not widely known or properly understood by much of the medical community. Here we aim to clarify these issues, based on the two intractable problems in the brain death debates. First, the metaphysical problem: there is no reason that withstands critical scrutiny to believe that BD is the state of biological death of the human organism. Second, the epistemic problem: there is no way currently to diagnose the state of BD, the irreversible loss of all brain functions, using clinical tests and ancillary tests, given potential confounders to testing. We discuss these problems and their main objections and conclude that these problems are intractable in that there has been no acceptable solution offered other than bare assertions of an 'operational definition' of death. We present possible ways to move forward that accept both the metaphysical problem - that BD is not biological death of the human organism - and the epistemic problem - that as currently diagnosed, BD is a devastating neurological state where recovery of sentience is very unlikely, but not a confirmed state of irreversible loss of all [critical] brain functions. We argue that the best solution is to abandon the dead donor rule, thus allowing vital organ donation from patients currently diagnosed as BD, assuming appropriate changes are made to the consent process and to laws about killing.

Facing Death: Attitudes toward Physician-Assisted End of Life among Physicians Working at a Tertiary-Care-Hospital in Israel

The demand for medical assistance in dying remains high and controversial with a large knowledge gap to support optimal patient care. The study aimed to explore physicians’ attitudes regarding euthanasia and examine the factors that related to these attitudes. We surveyed 135 physicians working at a tertiary-care hospital in Israel. The questionnaire was comprised of demographic and background information, DNR procedure information, encounters with terminally ill patients, familiarity with the law regarding end-of-life questions, and Attitudes toward Euthanasia. About 61% agreed that a person has the right to decide whether to expedite their own death, 54% agreed that euthanasia should be allowed, while 29% thought that physicians should preserve a patients’ life even when they expressed the wish to die. A negative statistically significant relationship was found between the level of religiosity and attitudes toward euthanasia. The physicians’ attitudes towards euthanasia are quite positive when compared to other countries. The data shows a conflict of values: the sacredness of human life versus the desire to alleviate patients’ suffering. The Coronavirus-19 outbreak reinforces the importance of supporting physicians’ efforts to provide ethical and empathic communication for terminally ill patients. Future studies should aim to improve our understanding and treatment of the specific types of suffering that lead to end-of-life requests.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic review of medical students' attitudes in the last 10 years

This study aimed at examining the approval rate of the medical students’ regarding active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and physician-assisted-suicide over the last ten years. To do so, the arguments and variables affecting students’ choices were examined and a systematic review was conducted, using PubMed and Web of Science databases, including articles from January 2009 to December 2018.

From 135 identified articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The highest acceptance rates for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were from European countries. The most common arguments supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were the followings: (i) patient’s autonomy (n = 6), (ii) relief of suffering (n = 4), and (ii) the thought that terminally-ill patients are additional burden (n = 2). The most common arguments against euthanasia were as follows: (i) religious and personal beliefs (n = 4), (ii) the “slippery slope” argument and the risk of abuse (n = 4), and (iii) the physician’s role in preserving life (n = 2). Religion (n = 7), religiosity (n = 5), and the attributes of the medical school of origin (n = 3) were the most significant variables to influence the students’ attitude. However, age, previous academic experience, family income, and place of residence had no significant impact.

Medical students' opinions on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be appropriately addressed and evaluated because their moral compass, under the influence of such opinions, will guide them in solving future ethical and therapeutic dilemmas in the medical field.

Patient Rights at the End of Life: The Ethics of Aid-in-Dying

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

The end-of-life needs and desires of patients, whether it is related to a terminal illness or age-related end-of-life physiological function, can vary from patient to patient. Each dying patient's case should be approached in an individual and patient-centered fashion while supporting the dying patient's desired preferences related to end-of-life treatment. This serves to recognize the dying patient's individual rights related to self-determination of preserving his or her dignity during the end-of-life process. As the U.S. population continues to age at the fastest pace in history, it is vital for end-of-life patients and their family members, health care providers, and lawmakers to consider how health policy can drive legislation that supports the dying patient's right to express his or her dignity and own end-of-life desires related to aid-in-dying by allowing health care providers to legally provide physician-assisted health (PAD) and death with dignity (DD) the end-of-life care dying patients prefer.

PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING(S)

Palliative, hospice, and long-term care.

FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS

When state laws do not support a terminally ill person's ability to make his or her own end-of-life decisions based on his or her own preferences and desires related to PAD and dignity in dying, there can be moral conflictions with the existing ethical principles that can contribute to additional distress and anxiety in the terminally ill patient. Not allowing the terminally ill patient the legal right to choose his or her preferences and desires at the end of life goes against the freedom of the patient to choose. The aging population is growing quickly, and people are living longer, which means the frail elderly in their final stages of death due to multisystem organ failure might also desire to have the option of PAD that supports dignity in dying.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Case managers are an instrumental and integral part of the end-of-life care team. They are held to the same standard of practice as clinical care providers when it comes to promoting the biomedical ethical points autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and fidelity. Following these ethical principles is critical for case managers to consider when supporting the desires and preferences of terminally ill patients. Case managers should be involved in all the patient-centered decision making for a terminally ill patient's desire for DD and PAD. It is critical for case managers to follow their organization's defined code of professional conduct as well their specific professional organization and professional certifying body's defined code of ethics and conduct despite their personal convictions.

End-of-Life Issues in Intensive Care Units

Critical care clinicians strive to reverse the disease process and are frequently faced with difficult end-of-life (EoL) situations, which include transitions from curative to palliative care, avoidance of disproportionate care, withholding or withdrawing therapy, responding to advance treatment directives, as well as requests for assistance in dying. This article presents a summary of the most common issues encountered by intensivists caring for patients around the end of their life. Topics explored are the practices around limitations of life-sustaining treatment, with specific mention to the thorny subject of assisted dying and euthanasia, as well as the difficulties encountered regarding the adoption of advance care directives in clinical practice and the importance of integrating palliative care in the everyday practice of critical-care physicians. The aim of this article is to enhance understanding around the complexity of EoL decisions, highlight the intricate cultural, religious, and social dimensions around death and dying, and identify areas of potential improvement for individual practice.

Spanish Version of the Attitude Towards Euthanasia Scale

Euthanasia is undoubtedly the protagonist of many of the debates around the end of life both among health staff and in the general population. Considering that nurses provide care for terminally ill patients and support families and patients in their final days, it is essential to know their attitudes towards euthanasia. The aims of the study were to adapt and validate the Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale to a Spanish context, to test the dimensionality and to estimate the reliability of the scale. A cross-sectional study was conducted with a non-probabilistic sample of Spanish health-workers of 201 in a University Hospital in Ciudad Real. A self-reported socio-demographic questionnaire and the Euthanasia Attitude Scale were used for data collection. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed, including reliability and validity using an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach's alpha of the Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale was α = 0.827 and McDonald's Omega = 0.903. The range of items of homogeneity was from 0.205 to 0.685. For the different exploratory factor analyses carried out, the Bartlett's test of sphericity was p < 0.001 and the sample index value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was over 0.802. in all cases. We present the factorial weights for three models: The first one assumes a unidimensional solution, the second model was composed by three factors and the third model was composed by four factors. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the three models presented an acceptable fit index. The Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale adaptation to a sample of Spanish health workers has shown, with some limitations, appropriate psychometric properties. There have been several differences between the original factorial solution. It would be necessary to replicate the study to reinforce the findings about the number of factors of the scale.

What passive euthanasia is

BACKGROUND

Euthanasia can be thought of as being either active or passive; but the precise definition of "passive euthanasia" is not always clear. Though all passive euthanasia involves the withholding of life-sustaining treatment, there would appear to be some disagreement about whether all such withholding should be seen as passive euthanasia.

MAIN TEXT

At the core of the disagreement is the question of the importance of an intention to bring about death: must one intend to bring about the death of the patient in order for withholding treatment to count as passive euthanasia, as some sources would indicate, or does withholding in which death is merely foreseen belong to that category? We may expect that this unclarity would be important in medical practice, in law, and in policy. The idea that withholding life-sustaining treatment is passive euthanasia is traced to James Rachels's arguments, which lend themselves to the claim that passive euthanasia does not require intention to end life. Yet the argument here is that Rachels's arguments are flawed, and we have good reasons to think that intention is important in understanding the moral nature of actions. As such, we should reject any understanding of passive euthanasia that does not pay attention to intent.

SHORT CONCLUSION

James Rachels's work on active and passive euthanasia has been immensely influential; but this is an influence that we ought to resist.

The practice of terminal discharge: Is it euthanasia by stealth?

‘Terminal discharges’ are carried out in Singapore for patients who wish to die at home. However, if due diligence is not exercised, parallels may be drawn with euthanasia. We present a theoretical discussion beginning with the definition of terminal discharges and the reasons why they are carried out in Singapore. By considering the intention behind terminal discharges and utilising a multidisciplinary team to deliberate on the clinical, social and ethical intricacies with a patient- and context-specific approach, euthanasia is avoided. It is hoped that this will provide a platform for professionals in palliative medicine to negotiate challenging issues when arranging a terminal discharge, so as to avoid the pitfall of committing euthanasia in a country such as Singapore where euthanasia is illegal. It is hoped that a set of guidelines for terminal discharges may someday be realised to assist professionals in Singapore and around the world.

Medical murder in Belgium and the Netherlands

This article is a response to Raphael Cohen-Almagor's paper entitled 'First do no harm: intentionally shortening lives of patients without their explicit request in Belgium'. His paper deals with very important matters of life and death, however its concept usage is in part misleading. For instance, the fact that medical murder takes place both in Belgium and the Netherlands is missed. Cohen-Almagor calls such acts 'worrying' and considers them to be 'abuse'. However, it remains an open question whether or not there can be such a thing as legitimate murder in a medical context. From the combined perspectives of justice and the duty to end unbearable suffering, there might be. Thus, key arguments for euthanasia are also prominent in an argument for medical murder.

[Qualitative research about euthanasia concept, between Spanish doctors]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The decriminalisation of euthanasia and assisted medical suicide has generated a continuous debate. The terminological confusion is one of the main difficulties in obtaining medical practice consensus. The objective of this study was to determine whether the terms of Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are used with the same meaning by doctors in Extremadura (Spain).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A qualitative study was conducted using two focus groups in which doctors from different specialties who attended a large number of terminal patients participated. No other focus group was required due to saturation. The sessions were tape recorded and transcribed by two experts in qualitative methodology. Atlas.ti software was used for the analysis. We were advised by the "Health Care at the end of life" Group of the Organizacion Médica Colegial of Spain.

RESULTS

Terminological confusion was verified in: 1) The mixture of etymological, functional and social concepts, 2) the term Passive Euthanasia, 3) the association between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, 4) the confusion with the equivalent "wish to hasten death", and 5) the difficulty of differentiating sedation with Euthanasia. There was consensus on some aspects: a) Full voluntariness, b) the condition of terminal illness, and c) the condition of unbearable symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptual variability persists in relation to the concept of Euthanasia, and is particularly noticeable in the persistence of the concept of passive euthanasia. It would be desirable to achieve a common language to assign a precise meaning to these words to help doctors in their professional practice.

Ethics and end of life care: the Liverpool Care Pathway and the Neuberger Review

The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying has recently been the topic of substantial media interest and also been subject to the independent Neuberger Review. This review has identified clear failings in some areas of care and recommended the Liverpool Care Pathway be phased out. I argue that while the evidence gathered of poor incidences of practice by the Review is of genuine concern for end of life care, the inferences drawn from this evidence are inconsistent with the causes for the concern. Seeking to end an approach that is widely seen as best practice and which can genuinely deliver high quality care because of negative impressions that have been formed from failing to implement it properly is not a good basis for radically overhauling our approach to end of life care. I conclude that improvements in training, communication and ethical decision-making, without the added demand to end the Liverpool Care Pathway, would have resulted in a genuine advance in end of life care.

Attitudes toward Euthanasia and Related Issues among Physicians and Patients in a Multi-cultural Society of Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Due to globalization and changes in the health care delivery system, there has been a gradual change in the attitude of the medical community as well as the lay public toward greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for terminally ill and dying patients. Physicians in developing countries come across situations where such issues are raised with increasing frequency. As euthanasia has gained world-wide prominence, the objectives of our study therefore were to explore the attitude of physicians and chronically ill patients toward euthanasia and related issues. Concomitantly, we wanted to ascertain the frequency of requests for assistance in active euthanasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Questionnaire based survey among consenting patients and physicians.

RESULTS

The majority of our physicians and patients did not support active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS), no matter what the circumstances may be P < 0.001. Both opposed to its legalization P < 0.001. Just 15% of physicians reported that they were asked by patients for assistance in dying. Both physicians 29.2% and patients 61.5% were in favor of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment to a patient with no chances of survival. Among patients no significant differences were observed for age, marital status, or underlying health status.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant percentage of surveyed respondents were against EAS or its legalization. Patient views were primarily determined by religious beliefs rather than the disease severity. More debates on the matter are crucial in the ever-evolving world of clinical medicine.

Attitudes Toward Euthanasia Among Doctors in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India: A Cross Sectional study

Context:

Advances in expertise and equipment have enabled the medical profession to exercise more control over the processes of life and death, creating a number of moral and ethical dilemmas. People may live for extended periods with chronic painful or debilitating conditions that may be incurable.

Aim:

This study attempts to study the attitudes of doctors toward euthanasia and the possible factors responsible for these attitudes.

Settings and Design:

A cross-sectional survey of 213 doctors working at a tertiary care hospital was conducted to determine their attitudes toward euthanasia.

Materials and Methods:

A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess attitudes and personal perceptions about euthanasia.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The Chi square test was used to assess factors influencing attitudes toward euthanasia.

Results:

A majority of the respondents (69.3%) supported the concept of euthanasia. Relief from unbearable pain and suffering was the most commonly (80.3%) cited reason for being willing to consider the option of euthanasia. Majority of those who were against euthanasia (66.2%) felt that the freedom to perform euthanasia could easily be misused. Disapproval of euthanasia was associated with religious affiliation (P<0.001) and speciality (P<0.001).

Conclusions:

A majority of the doctors in this study supported euthanasia for the relief of unbearable pain and suffering. Religion and speciality appear to be significant in determining attitudes toward euthanasia.

Donation after cardiocirculatory death: a call for a moratorium pending full public disclosure and fully informed consent

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.

Decision making in a life-threatening cerebral condition: a comparative study of the ethical reasoning of intensive care unit physicians and neurosurgeons

AIM

To study the support for the arguments of neurosurgeons and intensive care unit (ICU) physicians for and against life-sustaining treatment of critically ill patients, and whether neurosurgeons are less inclined to emphasize quality-of-life aspects than ICU physicians.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of ICU physicians in Sweden (n= 298) and all neurosurgeons in Sweden (n= 112). The respondents evaluated and prioritized different arguments for and against withholding neurosurgery, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and providing drugs which may hasten death.

RESULTS

The response rate was 62.5% for neurosurgeons and 73.5% for ICU physicians. Quality-of-life aspects were stressed as an important argument by the majority of both neurosurgeons and ICU physicians (76.8% vs. 54.0%); however, significantly more neurosurgeons regarded this argument as the most important (P < 0.001). A minority in both groups, although more ICU physicians (P < 0.001), supported a patient's previously expressed wish of not ending in a persistent vegetative state as the most important argument. As the case clinically progressed, a consensus regarding the arguments for decision making evolved.

CONCLUSIONS

No support was found for the hypothesis that ICU physicians care more about the quality of life of a severely ill patient. Indeed, significantly more neurosurgeons emphasized the quality-of-life aspects in this particular setting. Compared with neurosurgeons, significantly more ICU physicians considered the patient's own wishes to be important.

Confusion between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions: influences on public opinion poll results

BACKGROUND

Public opinion polls indicate that a majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia. However, there have been many criticisms of the validity of these findings. The objective of this study was to assess public opinion towards euthanasia while controlling for possible threats to validity indicated in the literature review.

METHODS

A telephone public opinion poll was conducted in 2002 with a representative sample of the general population of Quebec (n = 991; response rate = 49.8%). Respondents were asked about their support for euthanasia and treatment withdrawal and, for comparison, were asked a previously used question on euthanasia (Gallup) which has been criticized for methodological problems. Respondents were also asked to distinguish between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in hypothetical scenarios.

RESULTS

Eleven percent more people supported euthanasia with the Gallup question than the question developed in this study. Support for euthanasia (69.6%) was less prevalent than for treatment withdrawal (85.8%). Respondents who failed to distinguish between euthanasia and treatment withdrawal or withholding treatment in hypothetical scenarios were more likely to support euthanasia in public opinion poll questions. Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between opinions about the acceptability of euthanasia and inaccurate knowledge of the nature of euthanasia.

INTERPRETATION

Public opinion polls on euthanasia must be interpreted in the light of the wording of the question. Education of the population concerning euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions may be considered to be an important prerequisite to engage in public debate concerning the legalization of euthanasia.

Confusion between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions: influences on public opinion poll results

BACKGROUND

Public opinion polls indicate that a majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia. However, there have been many criticisms of the validity of these findings. The objective of this study was to assess public opinion towards euthanasia while controlling for possible threats to validity indicated in the literature review.

METHODS

A telephone public opinion poll was conducted in 2002 with a representative sample of the general population of Quebec (n = 991; response rate = 49.8%). Respondents were asked about their support for euthanasia and treatment withdrawal and, for comparison, were asked a previously used question on euthanasia (Gallup) which has been criticized for methodological problems. Respondents were also asked to distinguish between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in hypothetical scenarios.

RESULTS

Eleven percent more people supported euthanasia with the Gallup question than the question developed in this study. Support for euthanasia (69.6%) was less prevalent than for treatment withdrawal (85.8%). Respondents who failed to distinguish between euthanasia and treatment withdrawal or withholding treatment in hypothetical scenarios were more likely to support euthanasia in public opinion poll questions. Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between opinions about the acceptability of euthanasia and inaccurate knowledge of the nature of euthanasia.

INTERPRETATION

Public opinion polls on euthanasia must be interpreted in the light of the wording of the question. Education of the population concerning euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions may be considered to be an important prerequisite to engage in public debate concerning the legalization of euthanasia.

Boundaries, borders, and limits. A phenomenological reflection on ethics and euthanasia

The subject of euthanasia divides both people and nations. It will always continue to do so because the arguments for and against this issue are intrinsically related to each other. This paper offers an analysis of the interrelation of the arguments, departing from a phenomenology of boundaries. From the participant perspective the boundary of euthanasia appears as a limit. From a helicopter perspective it appears as a border. Reflecting on both perspectives they turn out to complement each other: the positive effects of the former correspond to the negative effects of the latter. In order to see how this interrelation of viewpoints works out in the case of euthanasia a paradigmatic case is analysed from the perspective of the patient, the doctor, and the family. This phenomenological analysis does not directly lead to normative conclusions. It helps by both paying attention to, and dealing with, the complexity of the issue with intellectual honesty.