Background: objective In the Netherlands, there has been a continuing public debate about the acceptability of end-of-life decision making.Comparison of the attitudes of the medical professionals and the general public may contribute to the quality of their communication and to optimal policy-making. Therefore, we assessed their attitudes toward end-of-life decision making in different situations.
Data, methods: A total of 391 Dutch physicians were interviewed in person (response: 81%). Questionnaires were mailed to 1777 members of the Dutch general public (response: 78%). Both groups were asked to answer questions about hypothetical patients, who differed in characteristics such as age or whether they were conscious. Questions were asked about attitudes toward active ending of life, terminal sedation, and increasing morphine with premature death as a likely consequence. By logistic regression analysis, the differences between public and physicians’ attitudes were assessed.
Results: Acceptance of active ending of life was larger among the general public than the physicians. Members of the general public did not seem to differentiate between the active ending of life and increasing morphine with premature death as a likely consequence. Physicians were most willing to increase morphine with premature death as a likely consequence, whereas active ending of life and terminal sedation were to a lesser degree, equally, acceptable. Patient characteristics seemed be more important factors for physicians than for the general public.
Conclusions: The observed differences in the appreciation of end-of-life decision making between the general public and physicians may threaten their communication. Continuing monitoring, debate and education is needed.