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.
Assisted suicide
Attitudes
Croatia
End-of-life decision-making
Euthanasia
Physician assisted suicide
Withdrawing
Withholding
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 02 2022
17 02 2022
Historique:
received:
23
08
2021
accepted:
08
02
2022
entrez:
17
2
2022
pubmed:
18
2
2022
medline:
29
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35172812
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00751-6
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00751-6
pmc: PMC8851732
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Health Serv Res. 2002 Oct;37(5):1419-39
pubmed: 12479504
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):492-494
pubmed: 28767342
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Dec 01;16(1):81
pubmed: 26625908
J Med Ethics. 2007 Apr;33(4):215-8
pubmed: 17400619
Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014 Mar 11;9(1):14
pubmed: 24618004
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2013 Dec;30(8):781-5
pubmed: 23349343
Omega (Westport). 2021 May 3;:302228211010597
pubmed: 33940964
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Jul 04;14:26
pubmed: 23826902
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(8):1723-32
pubmed: 16029774
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 19;372(12):1179-81
pubmed: 25776935
Palliat Med. 2013 Jan;27(1):13-26
pubmed: 23128904
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Aug;63(3):743-56
pubmed: 16537097
Gerontologist. 2001 Feb;41(1):51-60
pubmed: 11220815
Med J Aust. 1997 Feb 3;166(3):131-5
pubmed: 9059434
JAMA. 2019 Nov 5;322(17):1692-1704
pubmed: 31577037
Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R13
pubmed: 18279501
BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Oct 03;5:64
pubmed: 16202125
Palliat Med. 2012 Jan;26(1):43-9
pubmed: 21775411
Eur J Gen Pract. 2014 Mar;20(1):25-31
pubmed: 24359112
Can J Public Health. 2007 May-Jun;98(3):235-9
pubmed: 17626391
J Med Ethics. 2008 Jun;34(6):450-5
pubmed: 18511618
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Oct;26(10):3479-3488
pubmed: 29682690
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Jul 01;150:w20275
pubmed: 32657420
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 23;10(4):e0124320
pubmed: 25906265
Eur J Public Health. 2013 Jun;23(3):378-80
pubmed: 23275485
Int J Public Health. 2014 Feb;59(1):143-56
pubmed: 23558505
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Dec;41(11):1517-21
pubmed: 8607043
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 11;8(9):e020519
pubmed: 30206075
Death Stud. 2005 Jan-Feb;29(1):29-54
pubmed: 15726742
JAMA. 2016 Jul 5;316(1):79-90
pubmed: 27380345
JAMA. 2003 Aug 13;290(6):790-7
pubmed: 12915432
Scand J Public Health. 2009 May;37(3):260-4
pubmed: 19181822
Health Policy. 2010 Oct;97(2-3):160-5
pubmed: 20488575
Med Care. 2013 Oct;51(10):938-44
pubmed: 23929402
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 20;15:86
pubmed: 25528457