title: Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: a survey study in 47 countries.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In recent years, the European euthanasia debate has become more intense, and the practice was legalized in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. We aimed to determine the current degree of public acceptance of euthanasia across Europe and investigate what factors explain differences.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were derived from the 2008 wave of the European Values Survey (EVS), conducted in 47 European countries (N = 67,786, response rate = 69 %). Acceptance of euthanasia was rated on a 1-10 scale.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Relatively high acceptance was found in a small cluster of Western European countries, including the three countries that have legalized euthanasia and Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain. In a large part of Europe public acceptance was relatively low to moderate. Comparison with the results of the previous EVS wave (1999) suggests a tendency towards a polarization in Europe, with most of Western Europe becoming more permissive and most of Eastern Europe becoming less permissive.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is roughly a West-East division in euthanasia acceptance among the European public, making a pan-European policy approach to the issue difficult.
authors.affiliation: End-of-Life Care Research Group, Ghent University, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium, jcohen@vub.ac.be.
authors.forename: Joachim
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Cohen
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Van Landeghem
authors.forename: Nico
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Carpentier
authors.forename: Luc
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Deliens
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001294:Attitude to Health; D005060:Europe; D005065:Euthanasia; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011639:Public Opinion; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Omega (Westport). 1994-1995;30(1):53-65
references.pmid: 11654176
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1993 Mar;36(6):757-65
references.pmid: 8480220
references.citation: Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2003 Aug;53(8):334-43
references.pmid: 12886491
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(8):1723-32
references.pmid: 16029774
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Aug;63(3):743-56
references.pmid: 16537097
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Feb;15(2):418-27
references.pmid: 9053461
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2008 Apr;34(4):247-53
references.pmid: 18375674
references.citation: Soc Biol. 2000 Fall-Winter;47(3-4):264-76
references.pmid: 12055698
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 2004 May;46(4):350-7
references.pmid: 15117346
references.citation: Linacre Q. 1996 Nov;63(4):64-75
references.pmid: 11656740
references.citation: Gerontologist. 2009 Dec;49(6):755-66
references.pmid: 19506031
references.citation: Eur J Public Health. 2006 Dec;16(6):663-9
references.pmid: 16641157
references.citation: Med Law. 2007 Jun;26(2):387-407
references.pmid: 17639859
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb 1;334(5):303-9
references.pmid: 8532027
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Nov;59(9):1985-92
references.pmid: 15312932
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1998 May;46(10):1355-66
references.pmid: 9665566
references.citation: Omega (Westport). 1980;11(4):281-91
references.pmid: 11663327
references.citation: Eur J Public Health. 2001 Mar;11(1):65-73
references.pmid: 11276574
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):917-30
references.pmid: 10972435
references.citation: Christ Bioeth. 1997 Dec;3(3):188-203
references.pmid: 11655313
references.citation: Leg Med (Tokyo). 2003 Mar;5 Suppl 1:S20-8
references.pmid: 12935547
references.citation: Intensive Care Med. 2008 Mar;34(3):423-30
references.pmid: 18157484