Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31510976›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Public and physicians' support for euthanasia in people suffering from psychiatric disorders: a cross-sectional survey study.

Kirsten Evenblij, H Roeline W Pasman, Agnes van der Heide, Johannes J M van Delden, Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsten EvenblijDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.evenblij@vumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5984-4959
H Roeline W PasmanDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Agnes van der HeideDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bregje D Onwuteaka-PhilipsenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) in people with psychiatric disorders is relatively rare, the increasing incidence of EAS requests has given rise to public and political debate. This study aimed to explore support of the public and physicians for euthanasia and assisted suicide in people with psychiatric disorders and examine factors associated with acceptance and conceivability of performing EAS in these patients.

methodsA survey was distributed amongst a random sample of Dutch 2641 citizens (response 75%) and 3000 physicians (response 52%). Acceptance and conceivability of performing EAS, demographics, health status and professional characteristics were measured. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

resultsOf the general public 53% were of the opinion that people with psychiatric disorders should be eligible for EAS, 15% was opposed to this, and 32% remained neutral. Higher educational level, Dutch ethnicity, and higher urbanization level were associated with higher acceptability of EAS whilst a religious life stance and good health were associated with lower acceptability. The percentage of physicians who considered performing EAS in people with psychiatric disorders conceivable ranged between 20% amongst medical specialists and 47% amongst general practitioners. Having received EAS requests from psychiatric patients before was associated with considering performing EAS conceivable. Being female, religious, medical specialist, or psychiatrist were associated with lower conceivability. The majority (> 65%) of the psychiatrists were of the opinion that it is possible to establish whether a psychiatric patient's suffering is unbearable and without prospect and whether the request is well-considered.

conclusionThe general public shows more support than opposition as to whether patients suffering from a psychiatric disorder should be eligible for EAS, even though one third of the respondents remained neutral. Physicians' support depends on their specialization; 39% of psychiatrists considered performing EAS in psychiatric patients conceivable. The relatively low conceivability is possibly explained by psychiatric patients often not meeting the eligibility criteria.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEuthanasiaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMental DisordersPublic OpinionCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusHumansNetherlandsPersons with Psychiatric DisordersPhysiciansQuality of LifeAssisted suicideAttitudesEpidemiologyEuthanasiaMedical decision makingPsychiatric disordersPublic opinion

Identifiers

PMID31510976
PMCPMC6737595
OpenAlexW2972813530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.