Attitudes of Terminally Ill Patients Toward Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In jurisdictions that permit euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, patients with cancer comprise the largest group to die by these methods. We investigated the personal attitudes toward these practices of patients receiving palliative care for advanced cancer. METHODS: Seventy patients (32 men and 38 women; median survival, 44.5 days) took part in a survey using in-depth semistructured interviews. The interviews were audiotaped for transcription and content analysis of themes. RESULTS: Most participants (73%) believed that euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be legalized, citing pain and the individual's right to choose as their major reasons. Participants who were opposed to legalization cited religious and moral objections as their central concerns. Forty (58%) of the 69 participants who completed the entire interview also believed that, if legal, they might personally make a future request for a hastened death, particularly if pain or physical symptoms became intolerable. Eight of these individuals (12%) would have made such a request at the time of the interview. These 8 participants differed from all others on ratings of loss of interest or pleasure in activities, hopelessness, and the desire to die (Ps<.02). They also had a higher prevalence of depressive disorders (P<.05). However, they did not differ on ratings of pain severity. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with advanced cancer favor policies that would allow them access to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide if pain and physical symptoms became intolerable. For patients who would actually make requests for a physician-hastened death, however, psychological considerations may be at least as salient as physical symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".