Attitudes of Terminally Ill Cancer Patients About Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Predominance of Psychosocial Determinants and Beliefs Over Symptom Distress and Subsequent Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are controversial issues, the views of those most affected, terminal patients, are seldom explored. Our objective was to assess whether the attitudes about euthanasia/PAS of terminally ill cancer patients were determined by their symptomatic distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey of 100 patients with terminal cancer. Statements related to the legalization of euthanasia/PAS were scored using Likert scales. We also asked patients how often they had considered ending their lives. Their responses were analyzed in relation to disease characteristics, including an assessment of symptomatic severity, sociodemographic features, general beliefs about the suffering of cancer patients, and survival. RESULTS: Most patients (69%) supported euthanasia or PAS for one or more situations. The association between these attitudes and symptoms was weak, consistent in univariate analysis only for shortness of breath. No significant associations were observed with pain, nausea, well-being, loss of appetite, depression, or subsequent survival. Agreement with euthanasia was significantly related to male sex, lack of religious beliefs, and general beliefs about the suffering of cancer patients and their families. In multivariate analysis, the only characteristics that remained statistically associated with support were the strength of religious beliefs and the perception that patients with cancer are a heavy burden on their families. Frequency of suicidal ideation was associated with poor well-being, depression, anxiety, and shortness of breath, but not with other somatic symptoms such as pain, nausea, and loss of appetite. CONCLUSION: Symptom intensity had limited impact on the attitudes about euthanasia of terminally ill cancer patients. Our findings suggest that patient views are primarily determined by psychosocial traits and beliefs, as opposed to disease severity or symptomatic distress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".