ArticleMedicine2026
Knowledge, attitude, and acceptance of euthanasia among medical students and doctors in Pakistan: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, euthanasia is a strongly debated and ethically complex issue, with views shaped by cultural, religious, and moral precepts. In conservative cultures like Pakistan, euthanasia discussions are sensitive and occasionally ignored. This study aims to evaluate medical professionals' and students' knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance of euthanasia in Pakistan. From May 16 to June 16, 2025, a cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 10 Pakistani medical institutions. The study utilized convenience sampling to select MBBS first- and final-year students and practicing doctors with a minimum of 1 year of clinical experience. Outcomes were assessed using a modified Attitudes Toward Euthanasia scale and structured knowledge items to evaluate knowledge of euthanasia, attitudes toward it, and the acceptability of its legalization. Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics, while one-way analysis of variance and independent-samples t tests were used to assess differences in mean attitude ratings across demographic categories. Chi-square tests analyzed relationships between categorical factors and euthanasia approval, and Spearman rank correlation examined connections between attitude ratings and continuous variables such as age and clinical experience. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. A study involving 506 participants, including first-year and final-year medical students and practicing physicians, found that only 40.1% favored euthanasia. Knowledge and attitude scores averaged 66.4 ± 10.8 and 8.7 ± 2.1, respectively, with a positive correlation between them (ρ = 0.44, P < .01). Practicing physicians showed significantly higher acceptance than students, particularly those with lower religiosity (P < .05). Acceptance of euthanasia is related significantly to religion and religiosity, with non-Muslims and less religious participants more likely to accept it. Gender, occupation, religion, province, and religiosity were independent predictors of attitude scores, while religion and religiosity were the strongest predictors of approval in logistic regression. Pakistani medical students and doctors possess limited knowledge and varied attitudes toward euthanasia, significantly influenced by professional experience, level of training, and religious beliefs. Misconceptions about the legal and ethical aspects emphasize the need for integrating structured bioethics and end-of-life care education in medical training. Targeted educational initiatives can enhance ethically informed decision-making among healthcare professionals.
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.