Assisted life termination and truth telling to terminally ill patients - a cross-sectional study of public opinions in Israel.
Autonomy
Doctor-assisted-death
End-of-life
Truth-telling
Journal
Israel journal of health policy research
ISSN: 2045-4015
Titre abrégé: Isr J Health Policy Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101584158
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 10 2020
26 10 2020
Historique:
received:
10
09
2020
accepted:
21
10
2020
entrez:
27
10
2020
pubmed:
28
10
2020
medline:
2
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
End-of-life decisions are highly complex socio-normative and ethical phenomena. The goal of this study was to provide an assessment of public opinions in Israel concerning aspects of end-of-life decisions. An online cross sectional study was performed in February 2020. The primary tool including items pertaining to death assistance and truth telling to patients. A sample of 515 participants representative of the adult Israeli population was obtained. The majority of participants (71%) supports telling the entire truth to patients even in harsh conditions. Support for truth telling decreases with affiliation to religion, with as little as 40% support among ultra-orthodox. People with vocational education are the least supportive of truth telling. Concerning doctor assisted death, almost half (49%) of the sample were supportive. Opposition is positively associated with religiosity, with 90% of ultra-orthodox and 58% of religious participants opposing doctor-assisted death, compared to only 18% among seculars. Non-Jews were 3.35 times (95%CI: 1.90, 5.91) more likely to oppose doctor assisted death than Jews (p < .0001). An Interrelationship analysis crossing between attitudes revealed that the largest group (39%) was comprised of participants who support both ("autonomists"). Israelis are overwhelmingly supportive of truth telling to patients. In contrast, Israeli public opinions on doctor assisted death are divided. For both attitudes, religiousness plays a crucial role as a catalyst for conservatism and opposition to change. Almost a half of the public is also supportive of an autonomist approach that would allow patients to decide on ending their own lives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
End-of-life decisions are highly complex socio-normative and ethical phenomena. The goal of this study was to provide an assessment of public opinions in Israel concerning aspects of end-of-life decisions.
METHODS
An online cross sectional study was performed in February 2020. The primary tool including items pertaining to death assistance and truth telling to patients. A sample of 515 participants representative of the adult Israeli population was obtained.
RESULTS
The majority of participants (71%) supports telling the entire truth to patients even in harsh conditions. Support for truth telling decreases with affiliation to religion, with as little as 40% support among ultra-orthodox. People with vocational education are the least supportive of truth telling. Concerning doctor assisted death, almost half (49%) of the sample were supportive. Opposition is positively associated with religiosity, with 90% of ultra-orthodox and 58% of religious participants opposing doctor-assisted death, compared to only 18% among seculars. Non-Jews were 3.35 times (95%CI: 1.90, 5.91) more likely to oppose doctor assisted death than Jews (p < .0001). An Interrelationship analysis crossing between attitudes revealed that the largest group (39%) was comprised of participants who support both ("autonomists").
CONCLUSIONS
Israelis are overwhelmingly supportive of truth telling to patients. In contrast, Israeli public opinions on doctor assisted death are divided. For both attitudes, religiousness plays a crucial role as a catalyst for conservatism and opposition to change. Almost a half of the public is also supportive of an autonomist approach that would allow patients to decide on ending their own lives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33106184
doi: 10.1186/s13584-020-00419-9
pii: 10.1186/s13584-020-00419-9
pmc: PMC7586668
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57Références
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Mar;52(6):949-58
pubmed: 11234867
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Aug;49(3):303-11
pubmed: 10414816
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Feb;59(2):261-269
pubmed: 31539603
Harefuah. 2002 Jun;141(6):538-43, 578
pubmed: 12119771
J Palliat Med. 2015 Mar;18(3):259-65
pubmed: 25535671
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Nov;49(10):1401-8
pubmed: 10509829
J Med Ethics. 2019 Dec 23;:
pubmed: 31871263
Harefuah. 2018 Dec;157(12):751-755
pubmed: 30582305
JAMA. 1995 Sep 13;274(10):820-5
pubmed: 7650806
Death Stud. 1996 Nov-Dec;20(6):587-99
pubmed: 10169708
Omega (Westport). 2017 Aug;75(3):266-283
pubmed: 28701110
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Jul;38(7):1126-33
pubmed: 22527070
Theor Med Bioeth. 2002;23(4-5):287-303
pubmed: 12516834
J Soc Issues. 1996 Summer;52(2):63-84
pubmed: 15156862
J Palliat Care. 2018 Oct;33(4):197-203
pubmed: 29852810
Clin Med (Lond). 2010 Jun;10(3):282-5
pubmed: 20726464
J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Jun;12(2):177-8
pubmed: 25898900
J Law Med. 2018 Apr;25(3):837-858
pubmed: 29978671
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2013 Dec;30(8):781-5
pubmed: 23349343
J Med Ethics. 2017 Jun;43(6):413-416
pubmed: 28235885
Intern Med J. 2004 Sep-Oct;34(9-10):578-80
pubmed: 15482274
Heart Lung. 2006 Nov-Dec;35(6):412-22
pubmed: 17137943
Int J Public Health. 2014 Feb;59(1):143-56
pubmed: 23558505
Palliat Med. 2007 Sep;21(6):507-17
pubmed: 17846091
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Feb-Mar;46(4-5):467-74
pubmed: 9460827
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2016 Apr 30;5:6
pubmed: 27134719
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001 Jan-Feb;28(1):50-7
pubmed: 11198897
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Apr;71(1):52-6
pubmed: 18180136
JAMA. 2000 Nov 15;284(19):2476-82
pubmed: 11074777
Bioethics. 2016 Feb;30(2):109-18
pubmed: 25908398
Death Stud. 2005 Jan-Feb;29(1):29-54
pubmed: 15726742
JAMA. 2016 Jul 5;316(1):79-90
pubmed: 27380345
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 22;10(4):e0122321
pubmed: 25902309
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Feb 18;20(1):13
pubmed: 30777058