sign in sign up
<<
Home , Accidental death, Euthanasia

l

DOCUMENT RESUME:

. . / , - . ED 143 919 , ° CG 011 696

. . . , ... AUTHOR- Klopfer,A7re4rick J.; PricerWilliam F. : -- ! .TITLE Acceptance:=An Attitudinal Inquiry. . , .., puti DATE . Apr 77`' NOTE ,,6p.; Paper presented at tile Annual Meeting ofthe: . Western Psychological Association (Seattle,

. Washington,' April 1977) '. . .. . k . 1, . , , EDHS PRICE N10=.$0._63 RC-$1.67 -Plus Postage.' DESCRIPTORS *Beliefs; *; Interviews;, ; Research -r Projects; *Social Attitpdes; Surveys'

IDENTIEIERS,, *Euthanasia ."

, . .. 1 . , ''";,. .ABSTRACT .-

° The study presented vas cohductedAoexaii . potential relationships between attitudes, regarding the dyi g :e _ ploceSS,' including acceptahce of euthanasia, and other att tudinal ex demogaphic attributes. The dAta.of the turvey was comprised of responses given by .331 respon4ents to radOdito-door interview._ Results are discgssedin terms oi,pieferrred and prefetred:duratiOn.of the dying process.' (YRJ/Author)

.

co.

...-

- . .. . ,ilew ,,..° . -***4;**********4***********4********;14**********!*********************** ,-Ii. Documents acquired by ERIC.inClude,many informal unpublished * -.° * materials not available from othersources; ERIC"' makes evetyl effort ,* * toobtain the best copy available.'Nevertheless, iteis of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reFroductionb'ERICmakesavailable * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS).,EDRS isnot . *

'', * responsible for the quality of the origihal document.Reproductions * , * supplied by EDRS are best that can be made from ththe'original. * **********************,******ic*************************************** . ...,.** . . 1

. . r

4

4

7t.

Euthanasia Acuptance:`An Attitudinal Inquiry

'I v. Frederick J. Klopfer William F. Rrice

Oregon State University

AP

.

\

A

:PERMISSION TO REPROD CE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRA TED BY h' k

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)AND USERS OF THE /ERIC SYSTEM

Paper presefited at the meeting of the: Western Psychological Association, Seattle, April 1977

s. U S DEPARTMENT OFNEALTH, A EDUCATION &WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-. ATING IT POINTS OFNIEW OR OPINION% STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRET SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

r" b ,

Euthanasia Acceptance.: An Attitudinal Inquiry

Frederick 'J. Klopfer William F. Price,

Oregon State University

. . ildith'a heightened interest in the topic of death, increa d attention , has also been given to the manner in which onedies. This studywas conducted

to examine potential relationships between attitudes regarding thedyiAl '..'

i

'proCess, including acceptance'ofeuthanasia, 'and other-attitudinalI. . ./

demographic attributes...

. ., .

- Expessed blief in an 'nes .previously been found to be related , . , 4 , ' . , to a preferenceItrdeath by natural causes. Both philosophical (Alexander &

Arderwtet, 1965) and anthropological studies indicate a belief .fhat transition

into an afterlifeis adver'se'ly affected -by accidental or otherunnatural forms 0, .t ordeath. In this study, both.natural and were posed as

hypothetical situations involving immediate death. This was done to avoid

confusing dying durationwith:the,natUteal-accidental ,dithension. The relationship

betbreen tielief in Skafterlffeond.preferred duration Ofdeath was tssessed

. .. 1: , es. by asking a,separate questiom,concerning duration. I

. .. , Since beliefin an after We iskoresumedtobe related to a preference

6 for death'bynaturdi

,would resuiciii-rfejeCtion ofeuthaiiisii. Acceptance:versus rejection of w ) / 6 .4 P ri -, eutha;nasii)es-also examined with respect to: adbelfpf in an aftgrlife,:preferred

i. - 'II; ' i er . duration:oT death,'and One ageoftespondent . lt,Was expected that'euthat;isia

acceptance would be related to:a)ber:lief inanafterlile,. b)preferencesfor,a(

sudden,versus slow death (since euthanasiaassuresi.ibeed),-.and,c)younger r.

- subjects. also the potential fOr conditional ac tane:of euthanasia was'

by comparinreuthansia acepptance4 underwo1,t donditions of decision examined- t ',..-

I ' ' ) 4, 11 _.., .. -,..."

z V., -.- , 1- -I V 1

control. . / Finally, it,was expected that respondents preferring a sudden death were 4

likely to be younger.

Method

The predictions were assessed with information gained from anattitude

survey. The data from. this st..rvey were'comvised ofresponses:given by 331

respondents to a fixed-schedule interview given door-to-door interview in .

the,community of Lubbock, Texas. °Responses were collected'by 25 trained

interviewers. Of all persons approached, 13 per cent refused to paetidipate.

Another eight per cent of the data were unusuable due to interviewer error, r.

leaving the in rmation from 331 respondents. Residences for the door-to- . door interviewing were selectedusiL4a combination of cluster andinterval

sampling. The person answering the door was asked for his/her cooperation

if that individual was at least 18 years of age.' The method of data analysis

chosen to test_ the relationships was Chi Square.

- Results

_ . .. The acceptahce versus rejection of euthansia (passive) was independent

2 of preference .for natural versus accidental death, X(I) = 1.996, n.s'.

Acceptance of euthan sia was foundto coincide with-disbelief in an .

_. afterlife,X2(1)= 6.981, 2. .01, 2 Euthanasia was disproportionately accepted by younger subjects,X(1):=

8.091, .01.

A disproportionate num er of respondents approving of, e'getieral a

,_concept of passive euthanas a removed theiri.pprovalwhen 'elithanasia, decision;

making control was shifted f ompatient to relatives,X2(15= 59.473, la: .001.

- Aceeptance versus rejection of euthanasia wasindependent.cf'preference *100 2 for sloW versus sudden -death, (1) = 0.227,

af Belief in an afterlife coincidedWith preference for death by natural,

as opposed to accidental causes,X2(1)= 6.590, p .01.

'Belief in an afterlife was not related to preference for sloW versus

2 sudden death, X(1) = 0.970, n. s.

Preference for slow versus sudden-death,was not related to the respondents'

2 young or older age, X(1),= 0.116,

Discussion

Preferred cuase 'of death and 'preferred duration of death should be treated , / -I as separate concepts. While the former was found to be related to belief in t I an afterlife, the latter'Was not. Furt neither concept was related to 4

acceptance of euthanasia:*

kEuthanasia acceptance was found to be rplated.ta disbelief in an afterlife,

.contrary to expectations. Perhaps a reliance onA seculae solution, euthanasia,'

to Moral dilemmas requires a secular philosophy: Euthanasia acceptance was

found disproportionately more in younger subjects, for whbin the notion" is. prbbably

A. --,less"threaierOng. Yet shifts in euthanasia decision control dramatically increase ) the potential threat of the procedure for subjects overall. Nearly half of those

who approi;ed the general concept of euthanasia removedapproval when relatives

/.

would make the decision. ,

Finally,'tpe preferred durationof deith was found to be independ4ntof the

respondent's age:

4 This stpdy has examined relationshipi.amoing several attitudes.coricerning .. Y death and dying,including'atitudes.regarding euthanasia. InAhat euthanasia

, . legalization is beginning to occur, much more need 16 be kRown about the dynamics. . ! .., . . ... of,eutIlanasia acceptance.

./ . . References 1 -t 1 P I Alexander, I.E., & Aldersteinl A.M. ,Death and religion. Feifel ,Ed.),

. The meahing of death:New York: McGraw,Hill, 4 7