ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025
Confusion in Terminology Related to End-of-Life Decisions: Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Survey of Korean Public.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite high approval for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) reported recently in South Korea, confusion from varying term interpretations must be addressed. This study assesses public understanding of end-of-life terminology and preferred decisions among Koreans.
methodsAn online survey was conducted with 1,000 adult Koreans from June 10 to 14, 2024. To assess their understanding of end-of-life decision terms, participants were presented with scenarios on euthanasia, PAS, and decisions on forgoing life-sustaining treatment (DLST) and asked to select appropriate terms from each of the conventional (natural death, death with dignity, euthanasia) and objective (euthanasia, PAS, DLST) categories. To examine whether agreement levels differed between questions on terms alone and those with scenarios, initial agreement on euthanasia, PAS, death with dignity, natural death, and DLST was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, followed by case-specific agreement for euthanasia, PAS, and DLST. Finally, participants selected their preferred end-of-life decision, assuming terminal cancer.
results1) When scenarios involving euthanasia, PAS, and DLST were presented, respondents correctly identified each medical practice using objective terminology at rates of 37.4%, 53.8%, and 85.9%, respectively. 2) When the same medical practices were presented and respondents were asked to choose conventional terminology, the perception of these practices as "death with dignity" was 27.3% for euthanasia, 34.3% for PAS, and 57.2% for DLST. This result indicates that the subjective term "death with dignity" does not effectively differentiate between the three medical practices. 3) The initial agreement rates with the terms alone were 66.6% for euthanasia, 47.8% for death with dignity, 72.1% for PAS, 72.0% for natural death, and 75.5% for DLST. However, after presenting scenarios explaining each medical practice, some changes in agreement rates were observed. 4) When asked what decision they would personally choose in an end-of-life situation, 35.5% accepted euthanasia, 15.4% accepted PAS, and 41.3% accepted DLST.
conclusionThere is considerable confusion regarding end-of-life decision terminology among Koreans, particularly with "death with dignity," which significantly confounds opinions on euthanasia and PAS. Therefore, objective terms should be used in end-of-life decisions discussions. Finally, DLST was the most preferred end-of-life decision among Koreans.
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.