A citizens' jury on euthanasia/assisted dying: Does informed deliberation change people's views?

Abstract

Euthanasia or assisted dying (EAD) remains a highly contentious issue internationally. Although polls report that a majority New Zealanders support EAD, there are concerns about the framing of the polling questions, and that those responding to the questions do not know enough about the situations described, the options available and the potential implications of EAD policy. One way to address these concerns is through a citizens' jury, which is a method of learning how a group of people view an issue following informed deliberation. This citizens' jury was conducted to learn whether a group of 15 New Zealanders thought the law should be changed to allow some form of EAD and the reasons for their view, having been informed about the issue, heard arguments for and against, and having deliberated together. The jury met for two and a half days. They did not reach a consensus, but become polarized in their positions, with several changing their positions to either strong opposition or strong support. The reasons why people support or oppose EAD were not reducible to particular principles or arguments, but reflected an integrated assessment of a range of considerations, informed by personal priorities and experiences. These results suggest that views on EAD may change in response to informed deliberation that the EAD debate involves a range of value judgments and is not likely to be resolved through deliberation alone. These results may inform international debate on EAD policy.

A survey of methods for evaluating mini-publics

“…As a result, it was observed that opinion change occurred due to the provision of information, and the change continued for six weeks. In Walker et al's ( 2019 ) case, opinions on EAD were polarized after deliberation. A summary of the reasons behind the polarization suggests that without enough time, it is not possible to propose a compromise on a theme that involves a complex range of personal value judgments, such as in the EAD deliberation, which was shown to be useful as a means of promoting understanding of the theme and clarifying the background of disagreement.…”

“…In addition, many themes that deal with ethical issues were taken up and carried out with the aim of reflecting citizens' value judgments, including Xenografts, the first internationally discussed topic (Jones and Einsiedel 2011 ; Hansen and Allansdottir 2011 ), and euthanasia or assisted dying (EAD), a controversial issue in medical ethics and healthcare policy (Walker et al 2019 ). The value of a biobanking policy to store human biological specimens and data for research purposes was also deliberated (Walmsley 2011 ).…”

New Zealand medical students’ views of euthanasia/assisted dying across different year levels

“…The first question in the survey (Q1) was as follows: ‘Do you think the law in New Zealand should be changed to allow doctors, under certain circumstances, to provide or administer a medicine to a person, at their voluntary and competent request, that will bring about their death?’ To minimise the problem of framing bias, this question was taken from a recent ‘Citizens’ Jury’ project concerning New Zealanders’ views on EAD [ 23 ]. As part of the design of this Citizens' Jury, the wording of this question had been discussed and approved by a steering group of four recognised experts with a mix of views on whether EAD should be legal [ 23 ].…”

Attitudes and Arguments in the Voluntary Assisted Dying Debate in Australia: What Are They and How Have They Evolved Over Time?

“…In 2020, Walker and colleagues [ 29 ] published a study based on the findings of a citizen’s jury in New Zealand. Members of the citizen’s jury were questioned about their attitudes toward VAD and their reasons for holding those attitudes.…”

“…Additionally of note, the two arguments advocating for VAD in Australia that include a mention of suicide do not seem to appear in the global arguments for VAD put forward by Hendry and colleagues [ 28 ] nor the Walker and colleagues’ study [ 29 ]. The argument that suggests VAD is a safe medical procedure as opposed to the uncertainty and often violence [ 33 ] involved in a bid to die by suicide has been showing up in Australian VAD arguments since the mid 1990s.…”