ArticleCureus2023
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) of Medical Professionals on Euthanasia: A Study From a Tertiary Care Centre in India.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Definitional confusion in nurses' and physicians' attitudes toward euthanasia in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the public attitudes toward euthanasia legalization in China, especially among individuals with mental disorders: a national cross-sectional study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- "Healthcare professionals' attitudes towards euthanasia in the Balearic Islands."BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Awareness and attitudes toward euthanasia: A cross-sectional study among diverse demographic groups in India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Disparity in attitudes regarding assisted dying among physicians and the general public in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Re-evaluation of the psychometric properties of ATE following changes in euthanasia regulations in Spain.PloS one · 2025Article
- Demographic influences on Lithuanian physicians' attitudes toward medical assistance in dying: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEuthanasia or mercy killing has remained as a matter of extensive debate and ethical conflicts in the scientific literature. Discussions on this theme have got legal, religious, political and philosophical ramifications. AIM OF THE STUDY: The present study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of medical professionals in a tertiary care hospital.
methodsAfter taking prior approval from the institutional ethics committee a structured questionnaire was prepared and distributed among 200 consenting medical professionals in a tertiary care centre in the North-Western region of India.
results50% of the respondents said that they were sure of the existing regulation on euthanasia in India. When gender differences were considered a significant difference (p=0.0147) was found between the two sexes regarding the alternate decision maker for deciding euthanasia. It was observed that there was a significant difference(p=0.0055) between those with the age more than 30 years and aged less than 30 years regarding the type of euthanasia that is justifiable. DISCUSSION: In the present study, the percentage of doctors favouring euthanasia is higher than compared in previous studies. The view of euthanasia is highly variable in different studies. Even though passive euthanasia has been legalised recently, there is an apprehension that it might be misused.
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.