Anssi Lindblad

Objectives To explore attitudes and reasoning among Swedish physicians and the general public regarding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment at a competent patient's request. Design A vignette-based postal questionnaire including 1202 randomly selected individuals in the county of Stockholm and 1200 randomly selected Swedish physicians with various specialities. The vignettes described patients requesting withdrawal of their life-sustaining treatment: (1) a 77-year-old woman on dialysis; (2) a 36-year-old man on dialysis; (3) a 34-year-old ventilator-dependent tetraplegic man. Responders were asked to classify the act of terminating treatment and to prioritise arguments for/against. Results A majority in both groups prioritised arguments in favour of terminating treatment and classified the act as defensible in all vignettes. However, among the general public, 16% classified the act as euthanasia in all vignettes; among physicians this view was most expressed regarding ventilator treatment (26%). Some who classified the act as euthanasia prioritised arguments in favour of terminating treatment: among physicians 18% in vignette 1, 19% in vignette 2 and 34% in vignette 3; among the general public 35% in vignette 1, 20% in vignette 2 and 48% in vignette 3. Conclusion There is a widespread consensus regarding competent patients' right to abstain from life-sustaining treatment. An association between the hastening of death, caused by the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and the concept of euthanasia is proposed. The results also suggest that classifying the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment as ‘euthanasia’ does not necessarily mean that the act is interpreted as ethically unacceptable

Two questionnaires directed to Swedish physicians and a sample of the Swedish population investigated attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The aim of the present work was to analyse qualitative data from these questionnaires in order to explore how respondents reason about PAS. Data were analysed in two steps. First, we categorized different kinds of responses and identified pro and con arguments. Second, we identified general conclusions from the responses. The data reflect the differences in attitudes towards PAS among the public and physicians, with the former mainly in favour of PAS and the latter mainly against. There was, however, considerable agreement about what requirements must be met before PAS could be considered ethical. Many arguments against PAS concerned the professional role of physicians, which indicates that it may not be assisted suicide as such that many PAS opponents disagree with, but rather that it is handled by physicians in the regular health-care system