Surveys on attitudes towards legalisation of euthanasia: Importance of question phrasing

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 521-523

  Hagelin, J ^a,c   Nilstun, T ^b   Hau, J ^a   Carlsson, H E ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c NONE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COLLEGE STUDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENGINEERING; EUTHANASIA; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL STUDENT; NURSING; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EUTHANASIA; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 11144251644     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.002543     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Nilstun T, Melltorp G, Hermeren G. Surveys on attitudes to active euthanasia and the difficulty of drawing normative conclusions. Scand J Public Health 2000;28:111-16.
2. Beauchamp TL, Davidson AI. The definition of euthanasia. J Med Philos 1979;4:294-312.
3. Ubel PA, Asch DA. Semantic and moral debates about hastening death: a survey of bioethics. J Clin Ethics 1997; 8 242-9.
4. Pollard B. Euthanasia in Europe. Lancet 2001; 357:1039.
5. Kelleher MJ, Chambers D, Corcoran P, et al. Euthanasia and related practices worldwide. Crisis 1998;19 109-15.
6. Vincent JL. Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med 1999;27:1626-33.
7. Asai A, Ohnisi M, Kariya A, et al. Euthanasia and the family: an analysis of Japanese doctors' reactions to demands for voluntary euthanasia. Monash Bioethics Review 2001; 20:21-37.
8. Wolfe J, Fairclough DL, Clarridge BR, et al. Stability of attitudes regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia among oncology patients, physicians and the general public. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1274-9.
9. Chochinov HM, Wilson KG. The euthanasia debate: attitudes, practices and psychiatric considerations. Can J Psychiatry 1995;40:593-602.
10. Sullivan JL, Pierson J, Marcus GE. Ideological constraint in the mass public: a methodological critique and some new findings. Am J Polit Sci 1978;22:233-49.
11. Waller S. Trends in public acceptance of euthanasia worldwide. Euthanasia Rev 1986;1:33-47.
12. Kenis Y. L'euthanasie active et les medecins: practique et opinions. Bulletin du Conceil National Ordre des Medicins, 1994;3:53-61.
13. Nilstun T, Sjökvist P. From fact to recommendation: explicit value premises make the conclusion more convincing. J Intern Med 2001;249:121-5.
14. Hagelin J, Carlsson HE, Hau J. Medical students' view on the use of animals in biomedical resear+ch. Scand J Lab Anim Sci 1997;24:151-60.
15. Kalton G, Roberts J, Holt D. The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. Statistician 1980; 29:65-78.
16. Presser S, Schuman H. The measurement of a middle position in attitude surveys. Public Opin Q 1980;44:70-85.
17. Nilstun T. An inquiry among medical students. No to legalization of euthanasia, but yes to dropped charges or remission of sentence. Lakartidningen 2001;98:3417-18 (in Swedish).
18. Schuman H, Presser S. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
19. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, et al. The impact of "no opinion" response options on data quality - non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opin Quart 2002; 66:371-403.