Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study

BMC Medical Ethics

Vanessa Köneke¹ 

[1]Cologne Graduate School and SOCLIFE Research Training Group, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50931 Cologne, Germany

关键词: European Values Study;    Health care;    Trust;    Slippery slope;    Public opinion;    End-of-life-decisions;    Euthanasia;   

Others  :  1089947
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-86

 received in 2014-08-22, accepted in 2014-12-16,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

This study tests how various kinds of trust impact attitudes toward euthanasia among the general public. The indication that trust might have an impact on euthanasia attitudes is based on the slippery slope argument, which asserts that allowing euthanasia might lead to abuses and involuntary deaths. Adopting this argument usually leads to less positive attitudes towards euthanasia. Tying in with this, it is assumed here that greater trust diminishes such slippery slope fears, and thereby increases euthanasia acceptance.

Methods

The effects of various trust indicators on euthanasia acceptance were tested using multilevel analysis, and data from the European Values Study 2008 (N = 49,114, 44 countries). More precisely, the influence of people’s general levels of trust in other people, and their confidence in the health care system, were measured—both at the individual and at the country level. Confidence in the state and the press were accounted for as well, since both institutions might monitor and safeguard euthanasia practices.

Results

It was shown that the level of trust in a country was strongly positively linked to euthanasia attitudes, both for general trust and for confidence in health care. In addition, within countries, people who perceived their fellow citizens as trustworthy, and who had confidence in the press, were more supportive of euthanasia than their less trusting counterparts. The pattern was, however, not true for confidence in the state and for confidence in the health care system at the individual level. Notably, all confirmative effects held, even when other variables such as religiosity, education, and values regarding autonomy were controlled for.

Conclusions

Trust seems to be a noteworthy construct to explain differences in attitudes towards euthanasia, especially when drawing cross-country comparisons. Therefore, it should be added to the existing literature on correlates of euthanasia attitudes.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Köneke; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Christie B: New bid to legalise assisted suicide reaches Scottish parliament. BMJ 2013, 347:f6890.
• [2]Delamothe T, Snow R, Godlee F: Why the assisted dying bill should become law in England and Wales. BMJ 2014, 349:g4349.
• [3]Griffiths J, Weyers H, Adams M: Euthanasia and law in Europe. OR: Hart Portland; 2008.
• [4]Kermode-Scott B: Euthanasia and aiding suicide to remain criminal acts in Canada. BMJ 2013, 347:f5280.
• [5]Spranzi M: The French euthanasia debate: exception and solidarity. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2013, 22:254-262.
• [6]Teisseyre N, Mullet E, Sorum PC: Under what conditions is euthanasia acceptable to lay people and health professionals? Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:357-368.
• [7]Smith WJ: Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder. Dallas: Spence Publishing; 2003.
• [8]EVS: European Values Study 2008: Integrated Dataset. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive; 2011. ZA4800 Data file version 3.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.11004
• [9]Cook K: Trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2001.
• [10]Delhey J, Newton K: Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? Eur Sociol Rev 2005, 21:311-327.
• [11]Battin MP: Age rationing and the just distribution of health care: Is there a duty to die? Ethics 1987, 97:317-340.
• [12]Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L: The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy 2009, 90:181-187.
• [13]Demers D, Viswanath K: Mass Media, Social Control, and Social Change: A Macrosocial Perspective. Iowa City: Iowa State University Press; 1999.
• [14]Emanuel EJ: The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain. Ann Intern Med 1994, 121:793-802.
• [15]YouGov UK: Dignity in Dying Survey Results. 2013. http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/e7h1082zyc/YG-Archive-Dignity-in-Dying-results-180413-assisted-dying.pdf webcite
• [16]Hendry M, Pasterfield D, Lewis R, Carter B, Hodgson D, Wilkinson C: Why do we want the right to die? A systematic review of the international literature on the views of patients, carers and the public on assisted dying. Palliat Med 2013, 27:13-26.
• [17]Rietjens JA, van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G: Preferences of the Dutch general public for a good death and associations with attitudes towards end-of-life decision-making. Palliat Med 2006, 20:685-692.
• [18]Kemmelmeier M, Wieczorkowska G, Erb HP, Burnstein E: Individualism, authoritarianism, and attitudes toward assisted death: cross-cultural, cross-regional, and experimental evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol 2002, 32:60-85.
• [19]Verbakel E, Jaspers E: A comparative study on permissiveness toward Euthanasia. Public Opin Q 2010, 74:109-139.
• [20]van der Burg W: The slippery-slope argument. 2009. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1445308 (originally published 1991 in Ethics 102 , 42–65. reprinted and modified in 2009)
• [21]Kohlberg L, Hersh RH: Moral development: a review of the theory. Theory Pract 1977, 16:53-59.
• [22]Rotter JB: Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 1966, 80:1-28.
• [23]Walton DN: Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1992.
• [24]Volokh E: The mechanisms of the slippery slope. Harv Law Rev 2003, 116:1026-1137.
• [25]Smith SW: Fallacies of the logical slippery slope in the debate on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Med Law Rev 2005, 13:224-243.
• [26]Burgess JA: The great slippery-slope argument. J Med Ethics 1993, 19:169-174.
• [27]O'Mathuna DP: Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics. BMC Med Ethics 2006, 7:E2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Hardwig J: Is there a duty to die in Europe? If not now, when? In Justice, luck & responsibility in health care. Edited by Denier Y, Gastmans C, Vandevelde A. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014:109-126.
• [29]Rietjens JA, van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G: A comparison of attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: survey among the Dutch general public and physicians. Soc Sci Med 2005, 61:1723-1732.
• [30]Giordano S: Anorexia and refusal of life-saving treatment: the moral place of competence, suffering, and the family. Philos Psychiatr Psychol 2010, 17:143-154.
• [31]Gather J, Vollmann J: Physician-assisted suicide of patients with dementia. A medical ethical analysis with a special focus on patient autonomy. Int J Law Psychiatry 2013, 36:444-453.
• [32]Keown J: Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge: University Press; 2002.
• [33]Callahan D: When Self‒Detertnination Runs Amok. Hastings Cent Rep 1992, 22:52-55.
• [34]Lamb D: Down the Slippery Slope: Arguing in Applied Ethics. Croom Helm Ltd: Kent; 1988.
• [35]Lewis P: The empirical slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia. J Law Med Ethics 2007, 35:197-210.
• [36]Rietjens JA, van der Maas PJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, van Delden JJ, van der Heide A: Two decades of research on euthanasia from the Netherlands. What have we learnt and what questions remain? J Bioeth Inq 2009, 6:271-283.
• [37]Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, Deliens L: Legal euthanasia in Belgium: characteristics of all reported euthanasia cases. Med Care 2010, 48:187-192.
• [38]Grand-Duché de Luxembourg: Loi sur l’euthanasie et l’assistance au suicide. http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2009/0046/a046.pdf webcite
• [39]Buiting H, van Delden J, Onwuteaka-Philpsen B, Rietjens J, Rurup M, van Tol D, Gevers J, van der Maas P, van der Heide A: Reporting of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands: descriptive study. BMC Med Ethics 2009, 10:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Pereira J: Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Curr Oncol 2011, 18:e38-45.
• [41]Costa AC, Bijlsma-Frankema K: Trust and control interrelations new perspectives on the trust—control nexus. Group Organ Manage 2007, 32:392-406.
• [42]Shapiro SP: The social control of impersonal trust. AJS 1987, 93:623-658.
• [43]O'Neill O: Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• [44]Enoch D: Once you start using slippery slope arguments, you're on a very slippery slope. OJLS 2001, 21:629-647.
• [45]Cohen-Almagor R: Why The Netherlands? J Law Med Ethics 2002, 30:95-104.
• [46]Trappenburg M, Oversloot H: The Dutch Social Fabric Health Care, Trust, and Solidarity. In Physician-Assisted Death in Perspective: Assessing the Dutch Experience. Edited by Yougner SJ, Kimsma GK. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:99-122.
• [47]Andrew EV, Cohen J, Evans N, Menaca A, Harding R, Higginson I, Pool R, Gysels M, Prisma: Social-cultural factors in end-of-life care in Belgium: a scoping of the research literature. Palliat Med 2013, 27:131-143.
• [48]Bernheim JL, Distelmans W, Mullie A, Ashby MA: Questions and answers on the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care: experiment? Prototype? J Bioeth Inq 2014, 11:1-23.
• [49]Cohen J, Van Landeghem P, Carpentier N, Deliens L: Different trends in euthanasia acceptance across Europe. A study of 13 western and 10 central and eastern European countries, 1981–2008. Eur J Public Health 2013, 23:378-380.
• [50]Battin M: Voluntary euthanasia and the risks of abuse: can we learn anything from The Netherlands? Law Med Health Care 1992, 20:133-143.
• [51]Yücel Ö: Assisted dying in Turkey. In EAMCE Newsletter 36. Edited by Heijnen A. Maastricht: European Association of Centres of Medical Ethics; 2014:5-6.
• [52]Wasserman J, Clair JM, Ritchey FJ: Racial differences in attitudes toward euthanasia. OMEGA-J Death Dying 2006, 52:263-287.
• [53]Braun KL, Tanji VM, Heck R: Support for physician-assisted suicide: exploring the impact of ethnicity and attitudes toward planning for death. Gerontologist 2001, 41:51-60.
• [54]McKinley ED, Garrett JM, Evans AT, Danis M: Differences in end-of-life decision making among black and white ambulatory cancer patients. J Gen Intern Med 1996, 11:651-656.
• [55]Ward RA: Age and acceptance of euthanasia. J Gerontol 1980, 35:421-431.
• [56]Clery EMS, Philips M: Quickening death: the euthanasia debate. In British Social Attitudes: the 23rd Report – Perspectives on a changing society. Edited by Park A, Curtis J, Thomson K, Phillips M, Johnson M. London: Sage; 2007:35-54.
• [57]Raijmakers NJ, van der Heide A, Kouwenhoven PS, van Thiel GJ, van Delden JJ, Rietjens JA: Assistance in dying for older people without a serious medical condition who have a wish to die: a national cross-sectional survey. J Med Ethics 2013.
• [58]Buiting HM, Deeg DJ, Knol DL, Ziegelmann JP, Pasman HR, Widdershoven GA, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD: Older peoples' attitudes towards euthanasia and an end-of-life pill in The Netherlands: 2001–2009. J Med Ethics 2012, 38:267-273.
• [59]Cohen J, Marcoux I, Bilsen J, Deboosere P, van der Wal G, Deliens L: European public acceptance of euthanasia: socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63:743-756.
• [60]Cohen J, Van Landeghem P, Carpentier N, Deliens L: Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47 countries. Int J Public Health 2014, 59:143-156.
• [61]Bjørnskov C: Determinants of generalized trust: a cross-country comparison. Public Choice 2007, 130:1-21.
• [62]Jurić H: Croatia: Politics, Legislation, Patients' Rights and Euthanasia. In Law, Public Health Care System and Society, Volume 5: Croatia: Politics, Legislation, Patient’s Rights and Euthanasia. Edited by Jansen BES, Gosić N. München: Martin Meidenbauer; 2011:93-117.
• [63]Serrão D: Portugal–Euthanasia: not ethically permissible. In Ethical Eye – Euthanasia Vol II – National and European perspectives, Volume 2. Edited by Council of European Publishing. Maastricht: Council of Europe; 2004:75-83.
• [64]Balint K, Benaya EK, Hansen MK, Nielsen MR, Ørnstrup CA: Euthanasia in Danish print media. 2014. http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/16187 webcite
• [65]Hildén HM, Honkasalo ML: Unethical bunglers or humane professionals? Discussions in the media of end-of-life treatment decisions. Commun Med 2006, 3:125-134.
• [66]McInerney F: Heroic frames: discursive constructions around the requested death movement in Australia in the late-1990s. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:654-667.
• [67]Atwood-Gailey E: Write to death : news framing of the right to die conflict, from Quinlan's coma to Kevorkian's conviction. Westport: Praeger; 2003.
• [68]Schwartz KD, Lutfiyya ZM: ‘What lay ahead…’: a media portrayal of disability and assisted suicide. JORSEN 2009, 9:27-38.
• [69]Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Banerjee A, Taylor S: All in the family: media presentations of family assisted suicide in Britain. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63:2153-2164.
• [70]Hausmann E: How press discourse justifies euthanasia. Mortality 2004, 9:206-222.
• [71]Van Brussel L, Van Landeghem P, Cohen J: Media coverage of medical decision making at the end of life: a Belgian case study. Death Studies 2014, 38:125-135.
• [72]Goold SD, Klipp G: Managed care members talk about trust. Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:879-888.
• [73]Rotter JB: Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Am Psychol 1971, 26:443.
• [74]Somerville M: Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. 2nd editon. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2014.
• [75]Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Pantilat SZ, Noyes KM, Schillinger D: Reach and impact of a mass media event among vulnerable patients: the Terri Schiavo story. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23:1854-1857.
• [76]Green-Pedersen C: The conflict of conflicts in comparative perspective - Euthanasia as a political issue in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Comp Polit 2007, 39:273-291.
• [77]Pollock JC, Yulis SG: Nationwide newspaper coverage of physician-assisted suicide: a community structure approach. J Health Commun 2004, 9:281-307.
• [78]Marques MD, Critchley CR, Walshe J: Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Underst Sci 2014. doi: 10.1177/0963662514542372
• [79]Hossain F, Onyango B: Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. Intl J Consum Stud 2004, 28:255-267.
• [80]Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M: The "trust gap" hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 2003, 23:751-766.
• [81]Gutteling J, Hanssen L, van der Veer N, Seydel E: Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Underst of Sci 2006, 15:103-112.
• [82]Kim D, Baum CF, Ganz ML, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I: The contextual effects of social capital on health: a cross-national instrumental variable analysis. Soc Sci Med 2011, 73:1689-1697.
• [83]Poortinga W: Social capital: an individual or collective resource for health? Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:292-302.
• [84]Inglehart R: Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 1997.
• [85]Davis DW: Individual level examination of postmaterialism in the US: political tolerance, racial attitudes, environmentalism,-aand participatory norms. Polit Res Quart 2000, 53:455-475.
• [86]Inglehart R, Welzel C: Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
• [87]Hox JJ: Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd edition). New York: Routledge; 2010.
• [88]Cohen J, Van Wesemael Y, Smets T, Bilsen J, Deliens L: Cultural differences affecting euthanasia practice in Belgium: one law but different attitudes and practices in Flanders and Wallonia. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75:845-853.
• [89]Miccinesi G, Fischer S, Paci E, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Cartwright C, van der Heide A, Nilstun T, Norup M, Mortier F, EURELD consortium: Physicians' attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: a comparison between seven countries. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:1961-1974.
• [90]van Delden JJ, Battin MP: Euthanasia: not just for rich countries. 2008.
• [91]Gordijn B, Janssens R: The prevention of euthanasia through palliative care: new developments in The Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns 2000, 41:35-46.
• [92]Putnam RD: Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2001.
• [93]Uslaner EM: The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• [94]Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Wilkinson RG: Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation. Soc Sci Med 1999, 48:719-731.
• [95]Roh S, Lee J-L: Social capital and crime: a cross-national multilevel study. Int J Law Crime Justice 2013, 41:58-80.
• [96]Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F: Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 1997, 277:918-924.
• [97]Watkins P: Euthanasia–the erosion of trust? Clin Med 2005, 5:93-94.
• [98]Hall M, Trachtenberg F, Dugan E: The impact on patient trust of legalising physician aid in dying. J Med Ethics 2005, 31:693-697.
• [99]Lindblad A, Löfmark R, Lynöe N: Would physician-assisted suicide jeopardize trust in the medical services? An empirical study of attitudes among the general public in Sweden. Scand J Public Health 2009, 37:260-264.
• [100]Anderson LA, Dedrick RF: Development of the Trust in Physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient-physician relationships. Psychol Rep 1990, 67:1091-1100.
• [101]Rogers JR: Assessing right to die attitudes: a conceptually guided measurement model. J Soc Issues 1996, 52:63-84.
• [102]Wasserman J, Clair JM, Ritchey FJ: A scale to assess attitudes toward euthanasia. Omega-J Death Dying 2005, 51:229-237.
• [103]Stronegger WJ, Burkert NT, Grossschadl F, Freidl W: Factors associated with the rejection of active euthanasia: a survey among the general public in Austria. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [104]Ives J: A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic, interdisciplinary and reflexive bioethics. Bioethics 2014, 28:302-312.
• [105]Salloch S, Schildmann J, Vollmann J: Empirical research in medical ethics: how conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice. BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [106]Fetchenhauer D, Dunning D: Do people trust too much or too little? J Econ Psychol 2009, 30:263-276.
• [107]Fetchenhauer D, Dunning D: Why so cynical?: asymmetric feedback underlies misguided skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of others. Psychol Sci 2010, 21:189-193.
• [108]Ackerman F: Assisted suicide, terminal illness, severe disability, and the double standard. In Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. Edited by Battin M. New York: Routledge; 1998:149-162.
• [109]Huxtable R, Möller M: Setting a principled boundary’? Euthanasia as a response to ‘life fatigue. Bioethics 2007, 21:117-126.
• [110]Huxtable R: Logical separation? Conjoined twins, slippery slopes and resource allocation. J Soc Welf Fam L 23:459-471.
• [111]Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, de Cheveigne S, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, Hampel J, Jelsøe E, Correia Jesuino J, Kohring M, Kronberger N, Midden C, Hviid Nielsen T, Przestalski A, Rusanen T, Sakellaris G, Torgersen H, Twardowski T, Wagner W: Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 2000, 18:935-938.
• [112]Fenigsen R: A case against Dutch euthanasia. Hatings Cent Rep 1989, 19:S22-30.
• [113]Rietjens JA, Raijmakers NJ, Kouwenhoven PS, Seale C, van Thiel GJ, Trappenburg M, van Delden JJ, van der Heide A: News media coverage of euthanasia: a content analysis of Dutch national newspapers. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [114]World Health Organisation: The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en webcite
• [115]O’Brien RM: A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 2007, 41:673-690.