|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background There has been a continuing public debate about assisted suicide and the proper role, if any, of physicians in this practice. Legislative bans and various forms of legalization have been proposed.
Methods We mailed questionnaires to three stratified random samples of Michigan physicians in specialties likely to involve the care of terminally ill patients: 500 in the spring of 1994, 500 in the summer of 1994, and 600 in the spring of 1995. Similar questionnaires were mailed to stratified random samples of Michigan adults: 449 in the spring of 1994 and 899 in the summer of 1994. Several different questionnaire forms were used, all of which included questions about whether physician-assisted suicide should be banned in Michigan or legalized under certain conditions.
Results Usable questionnaires were returned by 1119 of 1518 physicians eligible for the study (74 percent), and 998 of 1307 eligible adults in the sample of the general public (76 percent). Asked to choose between legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an explicit ban, 56 percent of physicians and 66 percent of the public supported legalization, 37 percent of physicians and 26 percent of the public preferred a ban, and 8 percent of each group were uncertain. When the physicians were given a wider range of choices, 40 percent preferred legalization, 37 percent preferred "no law" (i.e., no government regulation), 17 percent favored prohibition, and 5 percent were uncertain. If physician-assisted suicide were legal, 35 percent of physicians said they might participate if requested 22 percent would participate in either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, and 13 percent would participate only in assisted suicide. Support for physician-assisted suicide was lowest among the strongly religious.
Conclusions Most Michigan physicians prefer either the legalization of physician-assisted suicide or no law at all; fewer than one fifth prefer a complete ban on the practice. Given a choice between legalization and a ban, two thirds of the Michigan public prefer legalization and one quarter prefer a ban.
A fundamental issue is whether society should ever permit any form of assisted suicide. There are well-developed arguments on both sides.6 Supporters of the practice emphasize the relief of suffering, individual autonomy, and the patient's right to be free from paternalistic state intrusion.11,12,13,14 Advocates also contend that allowing a small number of assisted suicides under carefully controlled and narrowly restricted conditions is better than acceding to secret and unregulated activity. Opponents stress that legalizing assisted suicide would represent a profound change in social values, that it would have serious unintended consequences, and that any gains from accepting the practice are not worth the risks.7,15,16,17,18
Even if assisted suicide were to be permitted under some conditions, a second issue is whether physicians should ever participate in it. Some believe that participation would run counter to the physician's role as a healer and compromise the trust patients place in their physicians,7 but others argue that it would not necessarily violate professional integrity.4 In any event, physicians are logical candidates for participation; they can assess a patient's medical and emotional status, and they know what pharmacologic agents and modes of administration would meet the needs of particular patients. More important, physicians are becoming better trained to provide palliative care, so they are ideally suited to demonstrate to patients that acceptable alternatives to assisted suicide may exist.5,6,8,9 It thus seems likely that if any form of assisted suicide is legalized, legislators will want to entrust the responsibility of assistance to physicians.
Prompted by the debate over physician-assisted suicide in Michigan, and in the hope of providing useful information to the Michigan legislature, we undertook a series of surveys of Michigan physicians and the state's general public, beginning in the spring of 1994. Preliminary results of the initial survey were reported in the Journal.19 We conducted a second survey of physicians and the public in the summer of 1994 and a third survey, of physicians alone, in the spring of 1995. This article reports the major findings from all three surveys.
Methods
Respondents
We selected our target sample of Michigan physicians from the American Medical Association master list, which contains both members and nonmembers of that group. After excluding physicians in residency training and in fellowships, we further narrowed the sample to include only physicians who were not federal employees, were currently practicing in Michigan, were either full-time hospital staff members or in office-based practice, directly cared for patients, and practiced specialties that involve the care of patients with terminal or chronic illness. More than half the doctors who met the first four criteria also met the fifth. From the approximately 8000 physicians in the state who qualified, geographically stratified random subgroups were selected to constitute the subsamples for the three separate surveys: 500 physicians for the spring of 1994, 500 for the summer of 1994, and 600 for the spring of 1995.
The target sample of Michigan adults was selected from a commercially maintained sample frame (Survey Samplings, Fairfield, Conn.) derived from national telephone-directory listings and information from administrative records (such as those for driver's licenses). Geographically stratified, random subgroups were selected to constitute subsamples: 449 adults for the spring of 1994, and 899 for the summer of 1994.
Questionnaires
We used a variety of questionnaires to explore different questions and wordings, and to assess whether the responses to certain core questions (common to all the forms) were influenced by the order of the questions, the other questions asked, or information given on the questionnaire.20,21 Each form of the questionnaire provided background information on arguments raised in the debate about physician-assisted suicide. To guard against bias, the questionnaires were developed in consultation with medical and legal experts and with spokespersons on both sides of the assisted-suicide debate in Michigan.
All questionnaires described a plan that would legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adult patients suffering unacceptable pain. Extensive safeguards were included (Table 1).
|
All respondents, both physicians and the general public, were asked whether the Michigan legislature should ban physician-assisted suicide or enact Plan A (or Plan B, for some physicians), and whether the plan should include voluntary euthanasia (defined as allowing a physician to "take the final action" that brings on a patient's death). Physicians also were asked about their personal willingness to participate in physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, their experience with terminally ill patients, and whether having "no law" (i.e., leaving the issue up to "the doctorpatient relationship" or "the medical profession") would be a better choice for Michigan than either legalization or prohibition.
Questionnaires were mailed according to an established survey-mailing protocol to increase respondents' cooperation.22
Results
Among the 1600 Michigan physicians in the target sample, 82 were found to be ineligible because they were either no longer practicing in Michigan (62 potential respondents) or deceased (5), or because the mailed questionnaires had been returned to the sender at least twice (15). Of the remaining 1518 eligible physicians, 1119 (74 percent) returned usable questionnaires. Among the 1348 Michigan adults in the target sample, 41 were found to be ineligible because they had died or moved out of the state. Of the remaining 1307 eligible respondents, 998 (76 percent) returned usable questionnaires.
The three survey periods and multiple questionnaire formats were not associated with any statistically significant differences in our results. Accordingly, the findings from the subsamples were combined and data are reported only for the total samples.
Attitudes toward Legalization
Respondents were asked whether the Michigan legislature should ban all physician-assisted suicide or legalize it by enacting Plan A (in the 1994 surveys) or Plan B (in the 1995 survey). Table 2 shows that 56 percent of physicians and 66 percent of the public thought the legislature should probably or definitely enact the plan and that 37 percent of physicians and 26 percent of the public thought the legislature should probably or definitely ban all physician-assisted suicide; 8 percent in each group were uncertain.
|
Participation by Physicians
Physicians were asked whether they themselves might be willing to participate in physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia if the practices were legalized. Fifty-two percent said they would not; 13 percent said they might participate only in assisted suicide; 22 percent said they might participate in both practices; 10 percent were uncertain; and 2 percent preferred not to answer (Table 2). In the 1995 survey, physicians who said they would not participate were asked, "Even though you would not participate, would you be willing to refer the patient to such services?" Of the 186 physicians who would not participate in either practice, 43 percent said they would refer patients; 38 percent said they would not; and 19 percent were uncertain.
Respondents from the general public were asked whether they might request physician-assisted suicide for themselves, if it were legalized and they were facing a terminal illness with much pain and suffering. Forty-eight percent said they probably or definitely would request it; 30 percent said they probably or definitely would not; and 22 percent were uncertain (Table 2).
A Wider Range of Choices
An item included only in the physicians' questionnaires broadened the range of choices to include "no law" options (as detailed in Figure 1). Asked which option they "would favor most," 40 percent of physicians favored a law permitting physician-assisted suicide; 17 percent favored a law prohibiting it; 37 percent favored having "no law" leaving the issue to be decided either by "the doctorpatient relationship" (22 percent) or on the basis of "guidelines or regulations" from "the medical profession" (15 percent); and 5 percent were uncertain.
|
Plan A or Plan B
The 1995 survey of physicians included three separate forms, one presenting only Plan B, one presenting Plan A first and then Plan B, and one reversing that order. The latter two forms included the question: "Assuming physician-assisted suicide were to be legalized, which do you think would be the better plan for doing so, Plan A or Plan B?" If we combine the results for those two forms to balance any order effects, then 42 percent of the physicians preferred Plan B, 27 percent preferred Plan A, 26 percent selected the response "I am unwilling or unable to state a preference because I think all physician-assisted suicide should be banned," and 4 percent were uncertain (264 physicians responded; 95 percent confidence intervals, ±6 percent or less).
For the questionnaires that presented both legalization plans, we tabulated the respondents' preferences for Plan A or a ban and Plan B or a ban. Among those who preferred Plan A to prohibition, 93 percent also preferred Plan B to a ban (95 percent confidence interval, 88 to 96 percent). However, among those who preferred Plan B to prohibition, only 79 percent also preferred Plan A to a ban (95 percent confidence interval, 71 to 85 percent).
Personal Characteristics Correlated with Views on Assisted Suicide
Table 3 presents personal characteristics of Michigan physicians in relation to their views on physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, as well as similar data for the Michigan public. There were no clear differences among physicians according to sex, but in the general public men were slightly more likely than women to support legalization and to consider assisted suicide for themselves. There was a slight tendency, among both physicians and the public, for older respondents to be less likely to support legalization. The most important personal characteristic was religion those who considered religion very important in their lives were much less likely both to support legalization and to consider personal involvement in assisted suicide, either as providers (physicians) or requesters (the public), than were people for whom religion was less important (Table 3).
|
Two thirds of Michigan adults reported that they or their close friends or family members had been faced with a terminal illness, although having had such an experience was not linked to any overall differences in support for legalization or in the likelihood of requesting physician-assisted suicide (Table 3).
Discussion
Public support in the United States for legalizing physician-assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, or both, seems to be increasing25,26; our findings with respect to Michigan are consistent with that trend. When asked to choose between two courses of legislative action, about two thirds of Michigan adults favored the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, and about one quarter preferred a ban on the practice. A majority of Michigan physicians also favored legalization rather than a ban, if given only those two choices. But what many Michigan physicians most preferred is that the legal system stay out of this area a position consistent with that of the Michigan State Medical Society, which opposes any legislation regarding physician-assisted suicide, one way or the other. Attractive as the "no law" option may be to some physicians, policy analyses suggest that it would be unrealistic and unworkable in any form.6,27
Most of the Michigan physicians surveyed in 1995 were willing to choose between two plans for legalization. The more frequently chosen option was Plan B, which assigned many responsibilities to palliative-care consultants and committees instead of burdening the physician, as was done in Plan A. It is worth noting that very few physicians who preferred Plan A ruled out Plan B (that is, preferred an outright ban to Plan B), whereas the reverse was not true.
The willingness of physicians to trade some degree of independence in patient care for the assistance of palliative-care consultants may reflect several considerations: physicians' concern about limitations in their own palliative-care skills; the moral, ethical, and legal liabilities associated with participating in physician-assisted suicide; and a preference for consultation among peers, which may be more familiar and comfortable to physicians than a legally prescribed protocol.
About one third (35 percent) of physicians thought they might participate in assisted suicide if the practice were legalized; some others were uncertain. Among the 52 percent who would not participate themselves, many indicated that they would be willing to refer patients to practitioners who would. This parallels attitudes toward abortion in some respects; many physicians who oppose a medical action on moral grounds are nevertheless willing to make referrals out of respect for a patient's autonomy.
Physicians' personal experiences and values influence their positions on these issues. For example, the doctors who had the least contact with terminally ill patients were the most likely to support the legalization of assisted suicide, a finding consistent with the attitude of physicians in the state of Washington.2 The widely replicated finding that strongly religious people are the most likely group to oppose such legalization28 was as evident in our study among physicians as among all adults in Michigan. Of the doctors who were asked about the importance of religion in their lives, those who said it was "very important" were the least likely to support legalization. Nevertheless, half of them were still willing to choose between the two legalization plans, and they favored Plan B by a three-to-one margin. This suggests that among those with the greatest reservations about legalization, the additional safeguards in Plan B palliative-care consultants and committees made that plan more acceptable than Plan A.
Our study differs from most earlier studies in that we surveyed both physicians and the general public using very similar questions, in order to make meaningful comparisons. Also, we asked respondents to consider specifically what the state legislature should do if the only choices were legalizing physician-assisted suicide with substantial restrictions or banning it entirely. We surveyed these groups at three different times and varied the wording and format of our questionnaires substantially, yet our surveys had highly similar results. This high degree of replication29 leaves us confident that the findings reported here are robust.
Our results may have several policy implications. On the one hand, given the overall stability of our findings at a time when assisted suicide was widely debated in Michigan, it appears unlikely that any new plan for legalization could win over large numbers of heretofore reluctant physicians, voters, or legislators. On the other hand, it is already the case, among both Michigan physicians and the state's adult population in general, that those who support the carefully defined legalization of physician-assisted suicide clearly outnumber those who support a total ban. Moreover, many in the state would also support voluntary euthanasia, especially for patients unable to act for themselves. These complex issues should not be decided by opinion polls, of course, but neither should medical ethicists or political decision makers ignore the strongly held views of those who will be most affected by legislative decisions on the question physicians and their potential patients.
Supported by a grant from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation.
We are indebted to Fei Fei Metzler for assistance in conducting the surveys and analyzing the data.
Source Information
From the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research (J.G.B., K.H.A., D.J.D., R.L.L., A.D.C.), the Department of Family Practice, the Medical School (D.J.D.), and the School of Public Health (R.L.L.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; and the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and the Departments of Family Practice and Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing (H.B.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Bachman at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248.
References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related Letters:
Physician-Assisted Suicide
Kavanaugh A., Wilson K. G., Chochinov H. M., Toffler W. L., Edwards M. J., Hamilton N. G., Edwards P. J., Robinson S. T., Bachman J. G., Alcser K. H., Doukas D. J., Lichtenstein R. L., Lee M. A., Nelson H. D., Tilden V. P.
Extract |
Full Text
N Engl J Med 1996;
335:518-520, Aug 15, 1996.
Correspondence
This article has been cited by other articles:
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |