Department of Bioethics (DRM, TB, SYK), Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service (PW), Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Apr;29(4):384-394. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2020.07.013. Epub 2020 Jul 30.
Advance request euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (AR-EAS) in persons with dementia is highly controversial. Results of typical public opinion surveys may not reflect the ethical and practical issues involved in the practice. We tested the impact of incorporating such issues in the assessment of public attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS.
Online survey (April 27-30, 2020) of 1,711 adults recruited via CloudResearch PrimePanel, matched to U.S. population in age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, education, household income, and political affiliation. After assessing initial attitudes toward legalization of AR-EAS, respondents viewed one of six randomly assigned scenarios depicting an ethical or practical issue in AR-EAS; acceptability of EAS in each scenario as well as general attitudes toward AR-EAS legalization were then elicited.
Approximately 54.4% initially agreed/strongly agreed with AR-EAS legalization; agreement was associated with lower dementia quality-of-life rating, younger age, not being religious, liberal politics, and $75,000-$99,999 income range. After viewing the scenarios, a minority in each scenario arm found the AR-EAS depicted acceptable (20.7%-39.1%; p<0.0001 for all six arms, in comparison with initial legalization question response). Support (agree/strongly agree) for AR-EAS legalization after reading specific scenarios was generally lower (range 36.5%-49.3%; p≤0.0002); change in support for legalization was associated with initial support for legalization, acceptability of AR-EAS in the scenarios, dementia quality-of-life ratings, and race.
Informing the public of the ethical and practical complexities in AR-EAS may have significant effects on their attitudes toward legalization. Future surveys should ensure that the public's views reflect sufficient exposure to these complexities.
在痴呆症患者中提前提出安乐死和/或协助自杀(AR-EAS)的请求是极具争议的。典型的公众意见调查结果可能无法反映实践中涉及的伦理和实际问题。我们检验了在评估公众对 AR-EAS 合法化的态度时纳入这些问题的影响。
通过 CloudResearch PrimePanel 招募了 1711 名成年人进行在线调查(2020 年 4 月 27 日至 30 日),这些成年人在年龄、性别、种族和/或民族、教育程度、家庭收入和政治派别方面与美国人口相匹配。在评估了 AR-EAS 合法化的初步态度后,受访者查看了六个随机分配的场景中的一个,这些场景描绘了 AR-EAS 中的一个伦理或实际问题;然后评估了每个场景中的 EAS 的可接受性以及对 AR-EAS 合法化的总体态度。
约 54.4%的人最初同意/强烈同意 AR-EAS 合法化;同意与较低的痴呆症生活质量评分、较年轻的年龄、不信教、自由政治以及 75000-99999 美元的收入范围相关。在观看了场景后,每个场景组中的少数人发现所描述的 AR-EAS 是可接受的(20.7%-39.1%;与最初的法律化问题回答相比,所有六个场景组均为 p<0.0001)。阅读特定场景后,对 AR-EAS 合法化的支持(同意/强烈同意)通常较低(范围为 36.5%-49.3%;p≤0.0002);对合法化的支持的变化与最初对合法化的支持、对场景中 AR-EAS 的可接受性、痴呆症生活质量评分和种族有关。
告知公众 AR-EAS 中的伦理和实际复杂性可能会对他们对合法化的态度产生重大影响。未来的调查应确保公众的观点反映出对这些复杂性的充分了解。