Genuis S J, Genuis S K, Chang W C
University of Alberta, Edmonton.
CMAJ. 1994 Mar 1;150(5):701-8.
To determine public attitudes toward the right to die, euthanasia and related end-of-life decisions.
Mail survey based on telephone numbers randomly selected by computer.
Edmonton.
Of 1347 computer-generated, randomly selected telephone numbers called between February and June 1992, 902 individuals were reached, and 500 eligible contacts (55%) agreed to fill out the mailed questionnaire based on 12 vignettes involving end-of-life decisions. A total of 356 usable questionnaires (71%) were subsequently returned.
Attitudes toward end-of-life decisions including withdrawal of life support, euthanasia, chronic suffering and the right to die, living wills and family involvement in decision making for incompetent individuals. Comments and demographic data were also solicited.
Of the respondents 84% supported a family's right to withdraw life support from a patient in a persistent coma, and 90% supported a mentally competent patient's right to request that life support be withdrawn. Active euthanasia was supported by 65% for only patients experiencing severe pain and terminal illness. There was marked opposition to euthanasia for patients in other circumstances, such as an elderly disabled person who feels he or she is a burden on relatives (opposed by 65%), a patient with chronic depression resistant to treatment (by 75%) or an elderly person no longer satisfied with life and who has various minor physical ailments (by 83%). In all, 63% of the respondents felt that legalization of euthanasia for terminal illnesses would lead to euthanasia for many other, unsupported reasons, and 34% supported legislation to prohibit euthanasia in all situations.
Public support for the right to die varies depending on the circumstances of the patient. The single most significant factor determining attitudes was the level of religious activity. The family's wishes were an important factor in end-of-life decisions for patients unable to communicate their desires. Both the general public and physicians should be primary participants in determining legislation regarding the right to die.
确定公众对死亡权、安乐死及相关临终决策的态度。
基于计算机随机选择电话号码进行的邮寄调查。
埃德蒙顿。
在1992年2月至6月期间拨打的1347个由计算机生成的随机选择电话号码中，联系到了902人，其中500名符合条件的联系人（55%）同意填写基于12个涉及临终决策的 vignette 的邮寄问卷。随后共收回356份可用问卷（71%）。
对临终决策的态度，包括撤除生命维持治疗、安乐死、慢性痛苦和死亡权、生前预嘱以及家庭在无行为能力个体决策中的参与情况。还征集了意见和人口统计学数据。
在受访者中，84%支持家属有权撤除处于持续昏迷状态患者的生命维持治疗，90%支持有行为能力的患者有权要求撤除生命维持治疗。仅对于患有剧痛和绝症的患者，65%的人支持积极安乐死。对于其他情况的患者，如认为自己是亲属负担的老年残疾人（65%反对）、对治疗有抵抗性的慢性抑郁症患者（75%反对）或对生活不再满意且有各种轻微身体疾病的老年人（83%反对），人们明显反对安乐死。总体而言,63%的受访者认为绝症安乐死合法化会导致出于许多其他无依据的原因而实施安乐死，34%的人支持在所有情况下禁止安乐死的立法。
公众对死亡权的支持因患者情况而异。决定态度的最主要因素是宗教活动水平。家庭意愿是无法表达自身愿望的患者临终决策中的一个重要因素。公众和医生都应成为决定死亡权相关立法的主要参与者。
