ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Perspectives of a sample of mostly younger doctors on physician-assisted suicide].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, implementation, and evaluation of a registry for the documentation and analysis of assisted suicide in Germany (RegAS) - study protocol.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- [Articulation of patients' suicidal ideation within the therapeutic context-experiences and needs of hospital healthcare professionals].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- Providers of and participants in suicide assistance in Germany: A field description based on expert interviews.PloS one · 2026Article
- [Knowledge and attitudes toward assisted suicide : Survey of members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI)].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Article
- [Dealing with assisted suicide-knowledge, attitudes and experiences of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn 26 February 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court revoked a law (§ 217 StGB) that had banned assisted suicide intended to be repeated on a regularly basis. Since then, a possible new legal regulation has been discussed. This study examined the knowledge, experiences, and attitudes of younger physicians towards physician-assisted suicide (PAS).
methodsA quantitative survey of postgraduate courses in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, and hematology was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. Possible factors influencing attitudes towards PAS were analyzed.
resultsA total of 1163 records (response rate 82.1%) were analyzed. Of the participants, 90.8% had experience with dying patients, 62.3% supported PAS only in palliative scenarios, 20.1% supported PAS regardless of the health status, 33.1% have been asked for PAS, and 3.3% had participated in PAS. In addition, 71.0% did not know the content of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision on § 217, 72.0% were not informed about the legislative proposals for the new regulation of PAS, and 66.4% saw doctors as the right person to decide whether a suicidal wish is permissible.
conclusionYounger doctors differentiate in their attitude towards PAS between people without illnesses and those in palliative treatment situations. Further investigations into the causes of the frequent ignorance of the normative foundations are necessary. The results suggest that more educational work needs to be done about suicide alternatives and palliative care options.
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.