ArticleJournal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry
Resource Limitation and "Forced Irremediability" in Physician-Assisted Deaths for Nonterminal Mental and Physical Conditions: A Survey of the US Public.
Article in Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confusion in Terminology Related to End-of-Life Decisions: Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Survey of Korean Public.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Debating Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Death in People with Psychiatric Disorders.Current psychiatry reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysician-assisted death (PAD) for people with nonterminal illnesses (PAD-NT) is a controversial practice legal in some countries and increasingly debated in others, including the United States. A major concern about legalization of PAD-NT is that a lack of resources may drive some with mental illnesses or physical disabilities to seek PAD.
objectiveTo assess US public opinion on PAD-NT under conditions of resource limitation.
methodsThe authors surveyed 2139 US adults matched to the US population in sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, political affiliation, and income. After giving their opinions regarding terminal PAD and PAD-NT in response to traditional PAD survey questions, respondents were randomly presented one of 4 scenarios of persons with nonterminal conditions requesting PAD-NT who lacked adequate resources to maintain their quality of life. The type of resources lacking (social or health care) and medical condition (mental or physical disability) were varied. Respondents' views regarding PAD-NT for the scenario specifically and legalization generally were then reassessed.
resultsAt baseline, 55.4% of respondents supported legalizing terminal PAD, and 36.9% supported legalizing PAD-NT. After analyzing the scenarios, 28.2% (range 18.6%-39.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with legalizing PAD-NT generally and 23.7% (15.2%-33.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with PAD-NT for the instance depicted, with mental illness scenarios receiving much lower support; respondents' comments suggest devaluation of life with physical disability versus with mental illness. Being politically liberal, not religious, and assigned physical disability scenarios were associated with greater support for PAD-NT in multivariable analyses.
conclusionsA minority of the US public supports PAD-NT in the context of inadequate resources, with much lower support for PAD-NT for mental illness than for physical disability, suggesting that PAD-NT policy debates and future research should address the issue of whether sufficient resources must be available to potential requestors of PAD-NT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.