Would physician-assisted suicide jeopardize trust in the medical services? An empirical study of attitudes among the general public in Sweden

Should Physician-Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia be Legalized in the United States? A Medically Informed Perspective

There is a pressing debate in the United States concerning the implied physicians' obligation to do no harm and the status of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Key issues that underpin the debate are important to consider. These include: (1) foundational medical beginnings; (2) euthanasia's historical and legal background context; and (3) the key arguments held by those for and against legalization of PAS. This paper reviews the major claims made by proponents for the legalization of PAS and the associated complexities and concerns that help underscore the importance of conscience freedoms. Relief of suffering, respect for patient autonomy, and public policy arguments are discussed in these contexts. We argue here that the emphasis by healthcare providers should be on high quality and compassionate care for those at the end of life's journey who are questioning whether to prematurely end their lives. If medicine loses its chief focus on the quality of caring-even when a cure is not possible-it betrays its objective and purpose. In this backdrop, legalization of PAS harms not only healthcare professionals, but also the medical profession's mission itself. Medicine's foundation is grounded in the concept of never intentionally to inflict harm. Inflicting death by any means is not professional or proper, and is not trustworthy medicine.

Rawlsian reasoning about fairness at the end of life

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to discuss end-of-life care in the context of Rawls' and Daniels' philosophy of justice. The study is based on an empirical survey of Swedish physicians who were asked whether they would want the option of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for themselves (hereafter called own preferences), what are their attitudes towards PAS in general and whether they were prepared to prescribe PAS drugs to eligible patients. The question is to what extent the physicians' answers are impartial and consistent in a Rawlsian sense.

METHODS

The underlying indicator was the physicians' own preferences. Kappa score inter-rater agreement was measured between that response and that same physician's general attitude towards allowing PAS and preparedness to prescribe PAS drugs. The coherence of provided comments and arguments were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Palliative care physicians are the least willing to offer PAS, and surgeons and psychiatrist the most willing. There is a discrepancy between physicians' general attitudes about allowing PAS, their own wishes to be offered PAS at the end of life and the concrete action of prescribing PAS drugs. Arguments given for not prescribing PAS by those in favour of PAS are seemingly but not truly inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Those supporting PAS provided impartial and consistent arguments for their stances in a Rawlsian sense, while those against PAS provided partial arguments. Two specialties, psychiatrists and palliative care physicians, were coherent in their reasoning about PAS for themselves and their willingness to prescribe the needed drugs.

Attitudes about withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide: a cross-sectional survey among the general public in Croatia

BACKGROUND

There has been no in-depth research of public attitudes on withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician assisted suicide in Croatia. The aim of this study was to examine these attitudes and their correlation with sociodemographic characteristics, religion, political orientation, tolerance of personal choice, trust in physicians, health status, experiences with death and caring for the seriously ill, and attitudes towards death and dying.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on a three-stage random sample of adult citizens of the Republic of Croatia, stratified by regions, counties, and locations within those counties (N = 1203). In addition to descriptive statistics, ANOVA and Chi-square tests were used to determine differences, and factor analysis (component model, varimax rotation and GK dimensionality reduction criterion), correlation analysis (Bivariate correlation, Pearson's coefficient) and multiple regression analysis for data analysis.

RESULTS

38.1% of the respondents agree with granting the wishes of dying people experiencing extreme and unbearable suffering, and withholding life-prolonging treatment, and 37.8% agree with respecting the wishes of such people, and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment. 77% of respondents think that withholding and withdrawing procedures should be regulated by law because of the fear of abuse. Opinions about the practice and regulation of euthanasia are divided. Those who are younger and middle-aged, with higher levels of education, living in big cities, and who have a more liberal worldview are more open to euthanasia. Assisted suicide is not considered to be an acceptable practice, with only 18.6% of respondents agreeing with it. However, 40.1% think that physician assisted suicide should be legalised. 51.6% would support the dying person's autonomous decisions regarding end-of-life procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found low levels of acceptance of withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician assisted suicide in Croatia. In addition, it found evidence that age, level of education, political orientation, and place of residence have an impact on people's views on euthanasia. There is a need for further research into attitudes on different end-of-life practices in Croatia.

Attitudes on euthanasia among medical students and doctors in Sri Lanka: a cross sectional study

Background

Euthanasia is a topic of intense ethical debate and it is illegal in most countries at present, including Sri Lanka. The aim of this descriptive cross-sectional study of medical students and practicing doctors was to explore the acceptance of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS), and factors influencing this opinion.

Methods

A customised online questionnaire which explored opinions on euthanasia was administered to first and final year medical undergraduates in University of Colombo and practicing doctors with more than 5 years of work experience at The National Hospital of Sri Lanka. Attitudes on euthanasia and PAS were also assessed with the attitudes towards euthanasia (ATE) Scale, which is a 10-item questionnaire.

Results

A total of 425 individuals responded (males: 178, 42%, age: median – 27 years), which included 143 (33.6%) first-year medical undergraduates, 141 (33.2%) final-year medical undergraduates and 141 (33.2%) practicing doctors. More participants (200, 47.1%) favoured legalizing euthanasia than those directly opposing it (110, 25.9%), but a significant proportion (27%) remained undecided. The mean scores of ATE questionnaire from the whole sample were generally unfavourable towards euthanasia/PAS. Accepting euthanasia as an option for oneself (p =  < 0.001) was the strongest predictor of favouring euthanasia/PAS or supporting its legalization.

Conclusion

In this cross-sectional survey, more respondents supported legalisation of euthanasia in Sri Lanka than those openly opposing it. Yet, a significant minority that responded as “undecided” for legalisation, were more likely to have unfavourable ATE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00731-2.

Trends in Swedish physicians' attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide: a cross-sectional study

AIMS

To examine attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide (PAS) among physicians in Sweden and compare these with the results from a similar cross-sectional study performed in 2007.

PARTICIPANTS

A random selection of 250 physicians from each of six specialties (general practice, geriatrics, internal medicine, oncology, surgery and psychiatry) and all 127 palliative care physicians in Sweden were invited to participate in this study.

SETTING

A postal questionnaire commissioned by the Swedish Medical Society in collaboration with Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

RESULTS

The total response rate was 59.2%. Slightly fewer than half [47.1% (95% CI 43.7-50.5)] of the respondents from the six specialties accepted PAS, which is significantly more than accepted PAS in the 2007 study [34.9% (95% CI 31.5-38.3)]. Thirty-three percent of respondents were prepared to prescribe the needed drugs. When asked what would happen to the respondent's own trust in healthcare, a majority [67.1% (95% CI 63.9-70.3)] stated that legalizing PAS would either not influence their own trust in healthcare, or that their trust would increase. This number is an increase compared to the 2007 survey, when just over half [51.9% (95% CI 48.0-55.2)] indicated that their own trust would either not be influenced, or would increase.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals a shift towards a more accepting attitude concerning PAS among physicians in Sweden. Only a minority of the respondents stated that they were against PAS, and a considerable proportion reported being prepared to prescribe the needed drugs for patient self-administration if PAS were legalized.

Value-impregnated factual claims and slippery-slope arguments

Slippery-slope arguments typically question a course of action by estimating that it will end in misery once the first unfortunate step is taken. Previous studies indicate that estimations of the long-term consequences of certain debated actions, such as legalizing physician-assisted suicide, may be strongly influenced by tacit personal values. In this paper, we suggest that to the extent that slippery-slope arguments rest on estimations of future events, they may be mere rationalizations of personal values. This might explain why there are proponents even for strikingly poor slippery-slope arguments.

Same same but different: why we should care about the distinction between professionalism and ethics

Medical professionalism forms a belief system which is used to defend physicians’ ethos against counterforces which might threaten the integrity of medical practice. The current debates on professionalism, however, are characterized by the lack of a clear distinction between professional and ethical aspects of physicians’ conduct. This article argues that a differentiation between professionalism and ethics is not of mere academic interest. Instead, it is of great practical importance with regard to morally contentious issues in medicine.

A short analysis of the discussions in history and social sciences reveals that professionalism is more than a catchphrase of modern medical debates but has a complex theoretical background which is still not conclusively understood. Whereas professionalism is clearly linked to the honorable aims of providing services to the individual and the society, it potentially entails problematic aspects, such as elitism, monopoly or the maintaining of power and privileges. With regard to morally contentious topics, the professional ethos of physicians must be differentiated from the perspective of ethics which can take a universal standpoint and has the potential to critically assess context-specific moral norms. The example of the current regulation on suicide assistance in German professional law is taken as an example to demonstrate how professional bodies tend to overstep the limits of their expertise and regulatory power with regard to issues which need an ethical evaluation.

The article concludes that the narrowing of ethics and professionalism in public discussions and in medical education should be seen as problematic and that morally contentious topics in modern societies should be open to a participatory and inclusive discussion and democratic decision procedures.

Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study

BACKGROUND

This study tests how various kinds of trust impact attitudes toward euthanasia among the general public. The indication that trust might have an impact on euthanasia attitudes is based on the slippery slope argument, which asserts that allowing euthanasia might lead to abuses and involuntary deaths. Adopting this argument usually leads to less positive attitudes towards euthanasia. Tying in with this, it is assumed here that greater trust diminishes such slippery slope fears, and thereby increases euthanasia acceptance.

METHODS

The effects of various trust indicators on euthanasia acceptance were tested using multilevel analysis, and data from the European Values Study 2008 (N = 49,114, 44 countries). More precisely, the influence of people's general levels of trust in other people, and their confidence in the health care system, were measured--both at the individual and at the country level. Confidence in the state and the press were accounted for as well, since both institutions might monitor and safeguard euthanasia practices.

RESULTS

It was shown that the level of trust in a country was strongly positively linked to euthanasia attitudes, both for general trust and for confidence in health care. In addition, within countries, people who perceived their fellow citizens as trustworthy, and who had confidence in the press, were more supportive of euthanasia than their less trusting counterparts. The pattern was, however, not true for confidence in the state and for confidence in the health care system at the individual level. Notably, all confirmative effects held, even when other variables such as religiosity, education, and values regarding autonomy were controlled for.

CONCLUSIONS

Trust seems to be a noteworthy construct to explain differences in attitudes towards euthanasia, especially when drawing cross-country comparisons. Therefore, it should be added to the existing literature on correlates of euthanasia attitudes.

Are physicians' estimations of future events value-impregnated? Cross-sectional study of double intentions when providing treatment that shortens a dying patient's life

The aim of the present study was to corroborate or undermine a previously presented conjecture that physicians' estimations of others' opinions are influenced by their own opinions. We used questionnaire based cross-sectional design and described a situation where an imminently dying patient was provided with alleviating drugs which also shortened life and, additionally, were intended to do so. We asked what would happen to physicians' own trust if they took the action described, and also what the physician estimated would happen to the general publics' trust in health services. Decrease of trust was used as surrogate for an undesirable action. The results are presented as proportions with a 95 % Confidence Interval (CI). Statistical analysis was based on inter-rater agreement (Weighted Kappa)-test as well as χ (2) test and Odds Ratio with 95 % CI. We found a moderate inter-rater agreement (Kappa = 0.552) between what would happen with the physicians' own trust in healthcare and their estimations of what would happen with the general population's trust. We identified a significant difference between being pro et contra the treatment with double intentions and the estimation of the general population's trust (χ(2) = 72, df = 2 and p < 0.001). Focusing on either decreasing or increasing own trust and being pro or contra the action we identified a strong association [OR 79 (CI 25-253)]. Although the inter-rater agreement in the present study was somewhat weaker compared to a study about the explicit use of the term 'physicians assisted suicide' we found that our hypothesis-physicians' estimations of others' opinions are influenced by their own opinions-was corroborated. This might have implications in research as well as in clinical decision-making. We suggest that Merton's ideal of disinterestedness should be highlighted.

Why do older people oppose physician-assisted dying? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Physician-assisted dying at the end of life has become a significant issue of public discussion. While legally available in a number of countries and jurisdictions, it remains controversial and illegal in New Zealand.

AIM

The study aimed to explore the reasons some healthy older New Zealanders oppose physician-assisted dying in order to inform current debate.

DESIGN

Recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by the authors after some edits had been made by respondents.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In all, 11 older participants (over 65 years) who responded to advertisements placed in Grey Power magazines and a University of Auckland email list were interviewed for around 1 h and asked a number of open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Four central themes opposing physician-assisted dying were identified from the interviews: one's personal experience with health care and dying and death, religious reasoning and beliefs, slippery slope worries and concern about potential abuses if physician-assisted dying were legalised.

CONCLUSIONS

An important finding of the study suggests that how some older individuals think about physician-assisted dying is strongly influenced by their past experiences of dying and death. While some participants had witnessed good, well-managed dying and death experiences which confirmed for them the view that physician-assisted dying was unnecessary, those who had witnessed poor dying and death experiences opposed physician-assisted dying on the grounds that such practices could come to be abused by others.

To treat or not to treat a newborn child with severe brain damage? A cross-sectional study of physicians' and the general population's perceptions of intentions

Ethical dilemmas are common in the neonatal intensive care setting. The aim of the present study was to investigate the opinions of Swedish physicians and the general public on treatment decisions regarding a newborn with severe brain damage. We used a vignette-based questionnaire which was sent to a random sample of physicians (n = 628) and the general population (n = 585). Respondents were asked to provide answers as to whether it is acceptable to discontinue ventilator treatment, and when it actually is discontinued whether or not it was acceptable to use drugs which hasten death unintentionally or intentionally. The response rate was 67 % of physicians and 46 % of the general population. A majority of both physicians [56 % (CI 50-62)] and the general population [53 % (CI 49-58)] supported arguments for withdrawing ventilator treatment. A large majority in both groups supported arguments for alleviating the patient's symptoms even if the treatment hastened death, but the two groups display significantly different views on whether or not to provide drugs with the additional intention of hastening death, although the difference disappeared when we compared subgroups of those who were for or against euthanasia-like actions. The study indicated that physicians and the general population have similar opinions regarding discontinuing life-sustaining treatment and providing effective drugs which might unintentionally hasten death but seem to have different views on intentions. The results might be helpful to physicians wanting to examine their own intentions when providing adequate treatment at the end of life.

De-tabooing dying control - a grounded theory study

Background

Dying is inescapable yet remains a neglected issue in modern health care. The research question in this study was “what is going on in the field of dying today?” What emerged was to eventually present a grounded theory of control of dying focusing specifically on how people react in relation to issues about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

Methods

Classic grounded theory was used to analyze interviews with 55 laypersons and health care professionals in North America and Europe, surveys on attitudes to PAS among physicians and the Swedish general public, and scientific literature, North American discussion forum websites, and news sites.

Results

Open awareness of the nature and timing of a patient’s death became common in health care during the 1960s in the Western world. Open dying awareness contexts can be seen as the start of a weakening of a taboo towards controlled dying called de-tabooing. The growth of the hospice movement and palliative care, but also the legalization of euthanasia and PAS in the Benelux countries, and PAS in Montana, Oregon and Washington further represents de-tabooing dying control. An attitude positioning between the taboo of dying control and a growing taboo against questioning patient autonomy and self-determination called de-paternalizing is another aspect of de-tabooing. When confronted with a taboo, people first react emotionally based on “gut feelings” - emotional positioning. This is followed by reasoning and label wrestling using euphemisms and dysphemisms - reflective positioning. Rarely is de-tabooing unconditional but enabled by stipulated positioning as in soft laws (palliative care guidelines) and hard laws (euthanasia/PAS legislation). From a global perspective three shapes of dying control emerge. First, suboptimal palliative care in closed awareness contexts seen in Asian, Islamic and Latin cultures, called closed dying. Second, palliative care and sedation therapy, but not euthanasia or PAS, is seen in Europe and North America, called open dying with reversible medical control. Third, palliative care, sedation therapy, and PAS or euthanasia occurs together in the Benelux countries, Oregon, Washington and Montana, called open dying with irreversible medical control.

Conclusions

De-tabooing dying control is an assumed secular process starting with open awareness contexts of dying half a century ago, and continuing with the growth of the palliative care movement and later euthanasia and PAS legislation.

Four Themes in Recent Swedish Bioethics Debates

A wide variety of bioethical themes have recently been debated and researched in Sweden, including genetic screening, HPV vaccination strategies, end-of-life care, injustices and priority setting in healthcare, dual-use research, and the never-ending story of scientific fraud. Also, there are some new events related to Swedish biobanking that might be of general interest. Here we will concentrate on four themes: end-of-life care, dual-use research, scientific fraud, and biobanking.

How are homeless people treated in the healthcare system and other societal institutions? Study of their experiences and trust

Aims: To elucidate the perceived treatment that the homeless have received from the healthcare and other societal organisations and to present homeless persons’ trust in the healthcare system and suggestions of necessary changes for improving it. Methods: Homeless individuals in special houses and institutions in the County of Stockholm were asked to answer a short version of a public health survey, including added questions about how they experienced the healthcare providers’ attitudes towards them and how much trust they had in the healthcare system. A total of 155 homeless persons (123 male and 32 female) were interviewed. Results: Three-quarters of the participants stated that they had fairly or very high trust in healthcare services and also felt that they had been fairly or very well treated. Fewer females than males reported being treated well and they declared a lower degree of trust in the healthcare system. The homeless suggest that extra resources be set aside to organise their healthcare, including a higher level of knowledge of the medical problems prevailing in the group. Those who felt badly treated also asked for less neglect and disrespect from the healthcare staff. Conclusions: Even though a majority experience that they are being well treated within the healthcare system, the study also indicated disadvantages in the treatment of homeless persons in Sweden. The study also reveals an imbalance between the official ethical framework in Sweden and of the specific moral of some individual healthcare providers. One way to facilitate their entry into the healthcare system might be to create special surgeries for the homeless.