Trends in acceptance of euthanasia among the general public in 12 European countries (1981–1999)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We wanted to examine how the acceptance of euthanasia among the general public in Western Europe has changed in the last decades, and we wanted to look for possible explanations. METHODS: We analysed data from the European Values Surveys, held in 1981, 1990, and 1999-2000 in 12 West European countries. In each country, representative samples of the general public were interviewed using the same structured questionnaire in all countries. Euthanasia was explained in the questionnaires as 'terminating the life of the incurably sick'. RESULTS: A total of 46 199 respondents participated in the surveys. A significant increase in acceptance of euthanasia could be observed in all countries except (West) Germany. While the average increase in euthanasia acceptance was 22%, the increase was particularly obvious in Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Sweden. Although changes in several characteristics of respondents, such as decrease in religious beliefs, rising belief in the right to self-determination, and (to a lesser extent) rise in levels of education, were associated with growing acceptance of euthanasia, they could only partly explain the increase of euthanasia acceptance over the years. CONCLUSIONS: An increase of euthanasia acceptance among the general public took place over the last two decades in almost all West European countries, possibly indicating a growing support for personal autonomy regarding medical end-of-life decisions. If this trend continues, it is likely to increase the public and political debate about the (legal) regulation of euthanasia under certain conditions of careful medical practice in several West European countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".