Descriptions of euthanasia as social representations: comparing the views of Finnish physicians and religious professionals

Abstract

In many western societies health professionals play a powerful role in people's experiences of dying. Religious professionals, such as pastors, are also confronted with the issues surrounding death and dying in their work. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the ways in which death-related topics, such as euthanasia, are constructed in a given culture are affected by the views of these professionals. This qualitative study addresses the ways in which Finnish physicians and religious professionals perceive and describe euthanasia and conceptualises these descriptions and views as social representations. Almost all the physicians interviewed saw that euthanasia does not fit the role of a physician and anchored it to different kinds of risks such as the slippery slope. Most of the religious and world-view professionals also rejected euthanasia. In this group, euthanasia was rejected on the basis of a religious moral code that forbids killing. Only one of the religious professionals -the freethinker with an atheist worldview -accepted euthanasia and described it as a personal choice, as did the one physician interviewed who accepted it. The article shows how the social representations of euthanasia are used to protect professional identities and to justify their expert knowledge of death and dying.

The Traditional Model Does Not Explain Attitudes Toward Euthanasia

“…Thus, of the factors considered in the traditional model, only the respondents’ religiosity consistently had significant effects on the respondents’ scores for all three euthanasia-related subareas. In keeping with previous studies, higher levels of religiosity were associated with lower levels of euthanasia acceptance and reduced support for its legalization (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Baeke et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2006; Danyliv & O’Neill, 2015; Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Ryynänen et al., 2002; Televantos et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the correlations between the various dimensions of religiosity and euthanasia-related communication were all rather unsatisfactory.…”

“…One explanation for the increase in support for euthanasia relates to the value of individual autonomy, in keeping with the previously proposed autonomy hypothesis (Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Köneke, 2014; Sikora & Lewins, 2007; Verbakel & Jaspers, 2010). Modern people seem to value the right of self-determination (Johanssen et al., 2005) and the ability to choose the moment and manner of one’s death, which euthanasia offers.…”

The Traditional Model Does Not Explain Attitudes Toward Euthanasia

“…Thus, of the factors considered in the traditional model, only the respondents’ religiosity consistently had significant effects on the respondents’ scores for all three euthanasia-related subareas. In keeping with previous studies, higher levels of religiosity were associated with lower levels of euthanasia acceptance and reduced support for its legalization (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Baeke et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2006; Danyliv & O’Neill, 2015; Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Ryynänen et al., 2002; Televantos et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the correlations between the various dimensions of religiosity and euthanasia-related communication were all rather unsatisfactory.…”

“…One explanation for the increase in support for euthanasia relates to the value of individual autonomy, in keeping with the previously proposed autonomy hypothesis (Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Köneke, 2014; Sikora & Lewins, 2007; Verbakel & Jaspers, 2010). Modern people seem to value the right of self-determination (Johanssen et al., 2005) and the ability to choose the moment and manner of one’s death, which euthanasia offers.…”

Maybe for unbearable suffering: Diverse racial, ethnic and cultural perspectives of assisted dying. A scoping review

“…Five studies provided perspectives on assisted dying according to various religious perspectives including Muslim, 42, 44 Jewish, 43 Buddhist, 47 Evangelical-Lutheran, Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist churches, Hare-Krishna and those from the Union of Freethinkers. 48 Another five focused on religiosity 37, 38 , 46 or spirituality. 40, 41…”

“…Assisted dying was not accepted by members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 48 and for Hasidic Jews, assisted dying was forbidden because human beings do not own their own bodies, with no distinction between personal opinion and the viewpoint of Jewish law: Life is not so easy. But, when we come with a purpose.…”

“…In eight studies, participants held the perspective that assisted dying was akin to suicide or killing. 33,35,38,42 –44,47,48 For Catholic Filipinos, assisted dying was against the Fifth Commandment, 33 and for Buddhist Vietnamese participants, equating assisted dying with suicide meant that a person “must go to Suicide Land and are very unhappy since they have not paid back their karma and it will follow them” (p. 263). 33 For those with Evangelical Lutheran faith, assisted dying goes against the Christian moral code that forbids killing.…”

The Traditional Model Does Not Explain Attitudes Toward Euthanasia

“…Thus, of the factors considered in the traditional model, only the respondents’ religiosity consistently had significant effects on the respondents’ scores for all three euthanasia-related subareas. In keeping with previous studies, higher levels of religiosity were associated with lower levels of euthanasia acceptance and reduced support for its legalization (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Baeke et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2006; Danyliv & O’Neill, 2015; Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Ryynänen et al., 2002; Televantos et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the correlations between the various dimensions of religiosity and euthanasia-related communication were all rather unsatisfactory.…”

“…One explanation for the increase in support for euthanasia relates to the value of individual autonomy, in keeping with the previously proposed autonomy hypothesis (Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Köneke, 2014; Sikora & Lewins, 2007; Verbakel & Jaspers, 2010). Modern people seem to value the right of self-determination (Johanssen et al., 2005) and the ability to choose the moment and manner of one’s death, which euthanasia offers.…”

Maybe for unbearable suffering: Diverse racial, ethnic and cultural perspectives of assisted dying. A scoping review

“…Five studies provided perspectives on assisted dying according to various religious perspectives including Muslim, 42, 44 Jewish, 43 Buddhist, 47 Evangelical-Lutheran, Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist churches, Hare-Krishna and those from the Union of Freethinkers. 48 Another five focused on religiosity 37, 38 , 46 or spirituality. 40, 41…”

“…Assisted dying was not accepted by members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 48 and for Hasidic Jews, assisted dying was forbidden because human beings do not own their own bodies, with no distinction between personal opinion and the viewpoint of Jewish law: Life is not so easy. But, when we come with a purpose.…”

“…In eight studies, participants held the perspective that assisted dying was akin to suicide or killing. 33,35,38,42 –44,47,48 For Catholic Filipinos, assisted dying was against the Fifth Commandment, 33 and for Buddhist Vietnamese participants, equating assisted dying with suicide meant that a person “must go to Suicide Land and are very unhappy since they have not paid back their karma and it will follow them” (p. 263). 33 For those with Evangelical Lutheran faith, assisted dying goes against the Christian moral code that forbids killing.…”

The Traditional Model Does Not Explain Attitudes Toward Euthanasia

“…Thus, of the factors considered in the traditional model, only the respondents’ religiosity consistently had significant effects on the respondents’ scores for all three euthanasia-related subareas. In keeping with previous studies, higher levels of religiosity were associated with lower levels of euthanasia acceptance and reduced support for its legalization (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Baeke et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2006; Danyliv & O’Neill, 2015; Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Ryynänen et al., 2002; Televantos et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the correlations between the various dimensions of religiosity and euthanasia-related communication were all rather unsatisfactory.…”

“…One explanation for the increase in support for euthanasia relates to the value of individual autonomy, in keeping with the previously proposed autonomy hypothesis (Jylhänkangas et al., 2014; Köneke, 2014; Sikora & Lewins, 2007; Verbakel & Jaspers, 2010). Modern people seem to value the right of self-determination (Johanssen et al., 2005) and the ability to choose the moment and manner of one’s death, which euthanasia offers.…”

Maybe for unbearable suffering: Diverse racial, ethnic and cultural perspectives of assisted dying. A scoping review

“…Five studies provided perspectives on assisted dying according to various religious perspectives including Muslim, 42, 44 Jewish, 43 Buddhist, 47 Evangelical-Lutheran, Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist churches, Hare-Krishna and those from the Union of Freethinkers. 48 Another five focused on religiosity 37, 38 , 46 or spirituality. 40, 41…”

“…Assisted dying was not accepted by members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, 48 and for Hasidic Jews, assisted dying was forbidden because human beings do not own their own bodies, with no distinction between personal opinion and the viewpoint of Jewish law: Life is not so easy. But, when we come with a purpose.…”

“…In eight studies, participants held the perspective that assisted dying was akin to suicide or killing. 33,35,38,42 –44,47,48 For Catholic Filipinos, assisted dying was against the Fifth Commandment, 33 and for Buddhist Vietnamese participants, equating assisted dying with suicide meant that a person “must go to Suicide Land and are very unhappy since they have not paid back their karma and it will follow them” (p. 263). 33 For those with Evangelical Lutheran faith, assisted dying goes against the Christian moral code that forbids killing.…”