IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i4p721-731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physician and family assisted suicide: results from a study of public attitudes in Britain

Author

Listed:
  • O'Neill, C.
  • Feenan, D.
  • Hughes, C.
  • McAlister, D. A.

Abstract

Legalisation of assisted suicide presents a dilemma for society. This arises because of a lack of consensus regarding the precedence to be accorded freedom of choice versus the inviolability of human life. Several factors including improvements in medical technology, population ageing and changing perceptions about quality of life serve to make a re-examination of attitudes to this issue appropriate at this time. Within this context, data from the 1983, 1984, 1989 and 1994 British Social Attitudes Surveys (BSAS) were examined. These demonstrate a slight increase in support for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) from around 75% to around 84% over the 11-year period in Britain. A much lower level of support (54%) was recorded in relation to family-assisted suicide (FAS). A logistic regression analysis of data from the 1994 survey was undertaken to establish the relationship between attitudes toward legalisation of PAS and FAS and the characteristics of the respondent. Strength of religious affiliation was found to be a significant determinant of opposition to legalisation of both. Religious denomination was found to be marginally significant in relation to PAS but not FAS. Members of the Church of England, non-Christian faiths and those of no faith were found to be marginally more likely to support legalisation of PAS, than Roman Catholics or those of other Christian faiths. Education, income, sex, marital status, long-standing illness and age were not found to be significant predictors of attitude. In relation to FAS age was also found to be significant predictor of opposition. Findings here suggest that if Britain continues to become a more secularised society, support for legalisation of PAS (and FAS) is likely to increase. As health care costs continue to grow and the ability to extend life (even where the quality of that life may be poor) increases, pressure for legalisation of PAS may increase.

Suggested Citation

  • O'Neill, C. & Feenan, D. & Hughes, C. & McAlister, D. A., 2003. "Physician and family assisted suicide: results from a study of public attitudes in Britain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 721-731, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:4:p:721-731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00421-5
    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. Sarah Vilpert & Carmen Borrat-Besson & Gian Domenico Borasio & Jürgen Maurer, 2020. "Associations of end-of-life preferences and trust in institutions with public support for assisted suicide evidence from nationally representative survey data of older adults in Switzerland," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Birenbaum-Carmeli, Daphna & Banerjee, Albert & Taylor, Steve, 2006. "All in the family: Media presentations of family assisted suicide in Britain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2153-2164, October.
    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:57:y:2003:i:4:p:721-731. 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.