IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v40y1995i12p1671-1681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Euthanasia: American attitudes toward the physician's role

Author

Listed:
  • Caddell, David P.
  • Newton, Rae R.

Abstract

This is a study of American public opinion toward euthanasia and the physician's role in performing it. The authors examine how these attributes are affected by religious affiliation, religious self-perception, political self-perception and education. The data include 8384 American respondents from years 1977, 1978, 1982, 1985 and 1988 of the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. The findings suggest that highly educated, politically liberal respondents with a less religious self-perception are most likely to accept active euthanasia or suiside in the case of a terminally patient. The data also show that Americans tend to draw a distinction between the suicide of a terminally ill patient and active euthanasia under the care of a physician, preferring to have the physician perform this role in the dying process. The tendency to see a distinction between active euthanasia and suicide was clearly affected by religious affiliation and education.

Suggested Citation

  • Caddell, David P. & Newton, Rae R., 1995. "Euthanasia: American attitudes toward the physician's role," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 1671-1681, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:12:p:1671-1681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00287-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bahník, Štěpán & Vranka, Marek Albert & Trefná, Klára, 2019. "What makes euthanasia justifiable," OSF Preprints n627v, Center for Open Science.
    2. Miles S. Marsala, 2019. "Approval of Euthanasia: Differences Between Cohorts and Religion," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, March.
    3. Danyliv, Andriy & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2015. "Attitudes towards legalising physician provided euthanasia in Britain: The role of religion over time," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 52-56.
    4. Cohen, Joachim & Marcoux, Isabelle & Bilsen, Johan & Deboosere, Patrick & van der Wal, Gerrit & Deliens, Luc, 2006. "European public acceptance of euthanasia: Socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 743-756, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:12:p:1671-1681. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.