Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1994 Mar 1;150(5):701–708.

Public attitudes toward the right to die.

S J Genuis 1, S K Genuis 1, W C Chang 1
PMCID: PMC1486347  PMID: 8313289

Abstract

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a patient in a persistent coma, and 90% supported a mentally competent patient's right to request that life support be withdrawn.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.

Full text

PDF
701

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Battin M. P. Assisted suicide: can we learn from Germany? Hastings Cent Rep. 1992 Mar-Apr;22(2):44–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Byock I. R. Final Exit: a wake-up call to hospice. Hosp J. 1991;7(4):51–66. doi: 10.1080/0742-969x.1991.11882710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Caralis P. V., Hammond J. S. Attitudes of medical students, housestaff, and faculty physicians toward euthanasia and termination of life-sustaining treatment. Crit Care Med. 1992 May;20(5):683–690. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199205000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dossetor John B., Wright Dalyce E., Burgess Michael M. Ethical issues in caring for the dying. Humane Med. 1993 Jan;9(1):7–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fenigsen R. The Report of the Dutch Governmental Committee on Euthanasia. Issues Law Med. 1991 Winter;7(3):339–344. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kuhse H., Singer P. Doctors' practices and attitudes regarding voluntary euthanasia. Med J Aust. 1988 Jun 20;148(12):623–627. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1988.tb116334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lo B., Rouse F., Dornbrand L. Family decision making on trial. Who decides for incompetent patients? N Engl J Med. 1990 Apr 26;322(17):1228–1232. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199004263221711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McIntyre R. L., Stolman C. J., Toreki W., Burnhill M., Henifin M. S., Rhoads G., Swee D., Trontell M., Hammond J., Strong M. Editors' round-table: physician-assisted dying. Trends Health Care Law Ethics. 1992 Winter;7(2):28–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moses L. E., Emerson J. D., Hosseini H. Analyzing data from ordered categories. N Engl J Med. 1984 Aug 16;311(7):442–448. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198408163110705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. O'Rourke K. Assisted suicide: an evaluation. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1991 Jul;6(5):317–324. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(91)90056-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Orentlicher D. From the Office of the General Counsel. Physician participation in assisted suicide. JAMA. 1989 Oct 6;262(13):1844–1845. doi: 10.1001/jama.262.13.1844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reed James. Interdependence in euthanasia. Humane Med. 1992 Apr;8(2):97–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rehm D., Martin E. The hospice response to proposals of assisted suicide. R I Med. 1992 Mar;75(3):127–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rosenblum V. G., Forsythe C. D. The right to assisted suicide: protection of autonomy or an open door to social killing? Issues Law Med. 1990 Summer;6(1):3–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sawyer D. M., Williams J. R., Lowy F. Canadian physicians and euthanasia: 2. Definitions and distinctions. CMAJ. 1993 May 1;148(9):1463–1466. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Scofield G. R. Physician-assisted suicide: part of the problem or part of the solution? Trends Health Care Law Ethics. 1992 Winter;7(2):15–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Smith M. L., Orlowski J., Radey C., Scofield G. A good death: is euthanasia the answer? Cleve Clin J Med. 1992 Jan-Feb;59(1):99–109. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.59.1.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Smith R. Euthanasia: time for a royal commission. BMJ. 1992 Sep 26;305(6856):728–729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6856.728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sprung C. L. Changing attitudes and practices in foregoing life-sustaining treatments. JAMA. 1990 Apr 25;263(16):2211–2215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Steiber S. R. Right to die: public balks at deciding for others. Hospitals. 1987 Mar 5;61(5):72–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wanzer S. H., Federman D. D., Adelstein S. J., Cassel C. K., Cassem E. H., Cranford R. E., Hook E. W., Lo B., Moertel C. G., Safar P. The physician's responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients. A second look. N Engl J Med. 1989 Mar 30;320(13):844–849. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198903303201306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES