ArticleCureus2025
Global Perspectives on Physician-Assisted Death: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Doctors' Opinions.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Physician-assisted death (PAD) remains ethically and legally contested worldwide. PAD encompasses both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and is used interchangeably with assisted dying. While some countries have legalized PAD, many others continue to deliberate, some remain silent, and many don't engage on this issue. Physicians' perspectives are central to these discussions, yet cross-national data remain limited. This study seeks to explore these perspectives and identify the factors that influence them. Methods We conducted an anonymous, online cross-sectional survey of physicians' opinions across 17 countries (n = 107). The questionnaire assessed demographics, clinical background, experiences with PAD and ethical/legal attitudes using Likert scales, checkboxes and free-text responses. This was disseminated through professional networks using online platforms. Results Of the 107 respondents, 55 (51.4%) practiced in Asia, 42 (39.3%) in the United Kingdom, and 10 (9.3%) in the United States, Europe, Oceania or Africa. Over half (n = 55, 51.9%) were aged between 25-34 years and nearly a quarter (n = 25, 23.4%) had more than 20 years of clinical experience across diverse specialties. Majority (n = 58, 54.2%) supported legalization of PAD for mentally competent, terminally ill adults, with declining support for non-terminal physical suffering (n = 47, 43.9%) and psychological suffering (n = 27, 25.2%). While views diverged on whether PAD undermines doctor-patient trust, most agreed it could coexist with palliative care. Legislative preferences varied widely, with leading support for legalizing PAD with strict safeguards (n = 39, 36.4%), while 15 (14.0%) preferred that it remain illegal. Discussion The findings of our survey align with published single-country studies which showed that majority supported PAD in restricted contexts. Ethical, cultural and professional concerns persist, with tension between autonomy and non-maleficence being a central theme. There seems to be a notable cross-sectional diversity with strong opposition from Northeast Asia and conservative regions and more openness in the West. These results should be interpreted considering study limitations, including the relatively small sample size and uneven representation across countries. Conclusion Doctors across multiple countries demonstrate nuanced but generally supportive views of PAD under strict safeguards.
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.