A Scale to Assess Attitudes toward Euthanasia

Abstract

The topic of euthanasia has been a matter of public debate for several decades. Although empirical research should inform policy, scale measurement is lacking. After analyzing shortcomings of previous work, we offer a systematically designed scale to measure attitudes toward euthanasia. We attempt to encompass previously unspecified dimensions of the phenomenon that are central to the euthanasia debate. The results of our pretest show that our attitude towards euthanasia (ATE) scale is both reliable and valid. We delineate active and passive euthanasia, no chance for recovery and severe pain, and patient's autonomy and doctor's authority. We argue that isolating these factors provides a more robust scale capable of better analyzing sample variance. Internal consistency is established with Cronbach's alpha=.871. Construct external consistency is established by correlating the scale with other predictors such as race and spirituality.

Attitudes of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A systematic literature review

“…Other authors have attempted to counteract the effect of terminology by devising a standardised euthanasia attitude 'scale', but no such scale was used in any of the included studies in this review. 25,26 The difficulties with question phrasing are just one factor in a constellation of potential biases in crosssectional surveys. Authors' efforts to minimise bias in included studies varied.…”

Attitudes towards euthanasia in Iran: the role of altruism

“…Items include, for example, ‘It is okay for a doctor to administer enough medicine to end a patient's life if the doctor does not believe that they will recover’ or ‘If a patient in severe pain requests it, a doctor should prescribe that patient enough medicine to end their life’. The ATE scale has been shown to have satisfactory reliability and validity 11. A five-point Likert-type scale was used, with higher scores indicating more support for euthanasia.…”

“…Cushman and Young 9 write, for example, that, ‘ordinary people's judgments are guided by explicit rules like that put forth by the American Medical Association distinguishing between “active” and “passive” euthanasia, the action/omission distinction may play a basic role in moral judgment’ (p1055). Despite philosophical arguments that deny the distinction between active and passive euthanasia,10 surveys show that the public perceive a distinction between these two whereby it may be permissible to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die (ie, passive euthanasia), but it is not permissible to take direct action to kill a patient (ie, active euthanasia) 11. However, several studies in Iranian samples showed that, although ‘ordinary people’ clearly distinguish between action and omission, they do not see much of a difference between the two types of euthanasia 8.…”

Assisted dying in dementia: a systematic review of the international literature on the attitudes of health professionals, patients, carers and the public, and the factors associated with these

“…Using a standardised measure of assisted dying attitudes, such as the ATE scale (Wasserman et al, 2005) or the Euthanasia Attitudes Scale (Holloway et al, 1994), would improve survey methodologies. The attitudes of people from minority groups are underrepresented and should be explored.…”