Abstract
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.
MeSH terms: Euthanasia, public opinion, withdrawing treatment, knowledge, problem formulation
Résumé
Contexte
Les sondages d’opinion révèlent que la population canadienne est majoritairement favorable à l’euthanasie. Toutefois, certains auteurs critiquent la validité de ces résultats. Cette étude vise à examiner l’opinion publique sur la question de l’euthanasie en prenant en compte les problèmes méthodologiques identifiés dans les écrits scientifiques.
Méthode
En 2002, un sondage d’opinion a été réalisé auprès d’un échantillon représentatif de la population québécoise (n=991; taux de réponse=49,8 %). Les répondants ont été priés de donner leur opinion sur l’euthanasie et l’arrêt de traitement; pour fins de comparaison, on a également posé une question utilisée antérieurement par la firme Gallup et qui avait été critiquée pour des raisons de méthode. À partir de vignettes, les répondants devaient également distinguer l’euthanasie d’autres pratiques de fin de vie.
Résultats
L’appui à l’euthanasie était supérieur de 11 points de pourcentage avec la question Gallup qu’avec celle élaborée dans le cadre de notre étude. L’appui à l’euthanasie (69,6 %) était moins élevé que l’appui à l’arrêt de traitement (85,8 %). Les répondants qui n’ont pu distinguer l’euthanasie de l’abstention de traitement ou de l’arrêt de traitement à partir des vignettes étaient plus favorables à l’euthanasie. De plus, il y avait une relation significative entre l’appui à l’euthanasie et la méconnaissance de l’euthanasie, démontrée par le fait de ne pas avoir reconnu la vignette décrivant la situation d’euthanasie.
Interprétation
Les sondages d’opinion sur l’euthanasie doivent être interprétés en tenant compte de la manière dont les questions sont formulées. L’information de la population sur l’euthanasie et les autres pratiques de fin de vie devrait être considérée comme une condition préalable à un débat éclairé sur la légalisation de l’euthanasie.
Footnotes
Source of support: IM was recipient of a grant from the “Fonds québécois pour la recherche sur la société et la culture” at the time of the study, and data collection was supported by the Centre for Research and Intervention on Suicide and Euthanasia.
References
- 1.Special Senate Committee on EuthanasiaAssisted Suicide. Of Life and Death. Ottawa, ON: The Senate of Canada; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gallup Canada. The Gallup Report. Toronto, ON: Canadian Institute of Public Opinion; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Roy Morgan Research Centre. Morgan Polls on Medically Assisted Death. Finding, No.2933. Melbourne, Australia: Roy Morgan Research Centre; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 4.O’Neill CO, Feenan D, Hugues C, McAlister DA. Attitudes to physician assisted suicide: Results from a study of public attitudes in Britain. J Med Ethics. 2002;28:52. doi: 10.1136/jme.28.1.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.DeCesare MA. Public attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons: 1977 and 1996. Soc Biol. 2000;47:264–76. doi: 10.1080/19485565.2000.9989022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.van der Maas PJ, Pijnenborg L, van Delden JM. Changes in Dutch opinions on active euthanasia, 1996 through 1991. JAMA. 1995;273:1411–14. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520420023013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Materstvedt LJ, Kaasa S. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Scandinavia — with a conceptual suggestion regarding international research in relation to the phenomena. Palliat Med. 2002;16:17–32. doi: 10.1191/0269216302pm470oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.World Medical Association. The World Medical Association resolution on euthanasia (adopted by the WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002) 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Canadian Medical Association. Euthanasia and assisted suicide (update 1998) 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 10.American Medical Association. E-2.21 Euthanasia. 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 11.British Medical Association. End of life decisions — views of the BMA. 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Australian Medical Association. Care of severely and terminally ill patients. 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 13.van der Maas PJ, van Delden JJM, Pijnenborg L, Looman CWN. Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life. Lancet. 1991;338:669–74. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91241-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Quill TE, Meier DE, Block SD, Billings JA. The debate over physician-assisted suicide: Empirical data and convergent views. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:552–58. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Silveira MJ, DiPiero A, Gerrity MS, Feudtner C. Patients’ knowledge of options at the end of life: Ignorance in the face of death. JAMA. 2000;284:2483–88. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.19.2483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, Haverkate I, de Graaff CLM, Kester JGC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, et al. Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1699–705. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199611283352227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wolfe J, Fairclough DL, Clarridge BR, Daniels ER, Emanuel EJ. Stability of attitudes regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia among oncology patients, physicians, and the general public. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1274–79. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.4.1274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Daniels ER, Clarridge BR. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: Attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public. Lancet. 1996;347:1805–10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91621-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hagelin J, Nilstun T, Hau J, Carlsson H-E. Surveys on attitudes towards legalisation of euthanasia: Importance of question phrasing. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:521–23. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.002543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Somerville M. Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gallagher R. Using a trade-show format to educate the public about death and survey public knowledge and needs about issues surrounding death and dying. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;21:52–58. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(00)00244-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Stauch M. Causal authorship and the equality principle: A defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:237–41. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Begley A-M. Acts, omissions, intentions and motives: A philosophical examination of the moral distinction between killing and letting die. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:865–73. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Garrard E, Wilkinson S P euthanasia. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:64–68. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tabadoa P. Concepts and definitions: A source of confusion in the euthanasia debate. Palliat Med. 2003;17:651–52. doi: 10.1177/026921630301700721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.van der Wal G. From the Netherlands. Palliat Med. 2003;17:110. doi: 10.1191/0269216303pm735op. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Saunders C. From the, UK. Palliat Med. 2003;17:102–3. doi: 10.1191/0239216303pm674op. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lavrakas PJ. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kimsma GK. Euthanasia and euthanizing drugs in the Netherlands. In: Battin MP, editor. Drug Use in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. New York, NY: The Haworth Press Inc.; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 30.New Zealand Medical Association. Euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide (July 2005) 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Roy DJ, Williams JR, Dickens BM, Baudouin J-L. La bioéthique: ses fondements et ses controverses. Saint-Laurent (Québec): Éditions du Renouveau pédagogique; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 32.McInerney F, Seibold C. Nurses’ definitions of attitudes towards euthanasia. J Adv Nurs. 1995;22:171–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.22010171.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kimsma GK, van Leeuwen E. Comparing two euthanasia protocols: The Free University of Amsterdam Academic Hospital and the Medical Center of Alkmaar. In: Thomasma DC, Kimbrough-Kushner T, Kimsma GK, Ciesielski-Carlucci C, editors. Asking to Die. Inside the Dutch Debate about Euthanasia. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1998. pp. 115–33. [Google Scholar]