ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Euthanasia in Syria: an examination of medical student attitudes and predictors in a conflict zone.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Physicians' Attitudes Toward Euthanasia in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Ethical Heterogeneity and Decision-Making Patterns.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences Regarding Undergraduate Medical Student Participation in Clinical Care: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Syria.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEuthanasia remains a contentious issue globally, with attitudes significantly shaped by cultural, religious, and societal factors. In Syria, over a decade of conflict has devastated the healthcare system and created unique ethical challenges for future physicians. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of Syrian medical students toward euthanasia and identify the key predictors influencing their views in a conflict, resource-deprived setting.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,509 medical students from four major Syrian universities using an online survey. The questionnaire included socio-demographic questions, the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, and five clinical scenarios depicting passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, orthothanasia, dysthanasia, and sedation. Data were analyzed using Chi-Square tests and binary logistic regression to identify predictors of agreement with different forms of euthanasia.
resultsA majority of students expressed disagreement with most forms of euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia (78.3% disagreement) and active euthanasia (45.3% disagreement). Strikingly, 60.4% of students agreed with dysthanasia (futile, aggressive treatment). Binary logistic regression revealed that being male, identifying as atheist or Christian (compared to Muslim), and having lower religious commitment were significant predictors of agreement with euthanasia. Higher empathy scores were paradoxically associated with opposition to euthanasia but with support for dysthanasia. Age was a significant predictor only for dysthanasia, with younger students showing more agreement.
conclusionSyrian medical students’ attitudes toward euthanasia are predominantly conservative, driven strongly by religious beliefs. The widespread support for dysthanasia and the paradoxical role of empathy highlight significant gaps in palliative and end-of-life care education. The unique pressures of the Syrian context, including systemic collapse and pervasive trauma, appear to foster moral distress that shapes these ethical viewpoints. Medical education in Syria must be reformed to include integrated palliative care training and psychological support to prepare students for the complex ethical realities of conflict medical practice.
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.