IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i11p1517-1521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public opinion regarding end-of-life decisions: Influence of prognosis, practice and process

Author

Listed:
  • Singer, Peter A.
  • Choudhry, Sujit
  • Armstrong, Jane
  • Meslin, Eric M.
  • Lowy, Frederick H.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of changing key factors in survey questions on public opinion regarding end-of-life decisions. These factors were: (a) patient prognosis (likely vs unlikely to recover from the illness); (b) end-of-life practice (foregoing treatment vs assisted suicide vs euthanasia); and (c) and decision making process (competent patient vs incompetent patient based on living will vs incompetent patient based on family wishes). A representative quota sample of 2019 Canadians 18 years of age or older were surveyed using a 13-item questionnaire with 12 items eliciting attitudes towards end-of-life decisions. The questions were systematically varied according to three key factors: patient prognosis, end-of-life practice and decision making process. One item assessed whether respondents had completed a living will. In the case of a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment in a competent patient, public approval was 85% if the person was unlikely to recover and 35% if the person was likely to recover. In the case of a competent patient unlikely to recover, public approval was 85% for forgoing life-sustaining treatment, 58% for assisted suicide, and 66% for euthanasia. In the case of forgoing life-sustaining treatment for a patient unlikely to recover, public approval was 85% for a competent patient, 88% for an incompetent patient who had expressed his/her wishes in advance through a living will, and 76% for an incompetent patient based on a family's request. The influence of these key factors was similar in other cases examined. Ten percent of Canadians said they had completed a living will. It was concluded that patient prognosis has a major effect, end-of-life practice a moderate effect, and decision making process a minor effect on public opinion regarding end-of-life decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Singer, Peter A. & Choudhry, Sujit & Armstrong, Jane & Meslin, Eric M. & Lowy, Frederick H., 1995. "Public opinion regarding end-of-life decisions: Influence of prognosis, practice and process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(11), pages 1517-1521, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:11:p:1517-1521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00057-E
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rietjens, Judith A.C. & van der Heide, Agnes & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D. & van der Maas, Paul J. & van der Wal, Gerrit, 2005. "A comparison of attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: Survey among the Dutch general public and physicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1723-1732, October.
    2. Erwin Stolz & Nathalie Burkert & Franziska Großschädl & Éva Rásky & Willibald J Stronegger & Wolfgang Freidl, 2015. "Determinants of Public Attitudes towards Euthanasia in Adults and Physician-Assisted Death in Neonates in Austria: A National Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:11:p:1517-1521. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.