A revealing international study shows that more than half of doctors would consider assisted dying for themselves in advanced illness cases like cancer or Alzheimer’s. The survey spanned eight jurisdictions with differing laws on euthanasia, showing that local legislation significantly shapes physicians’ personal end-of-life preferences.
Doctors in regions where euthanasia is legal—such as Belgium or Canada—were far more likely to view assisted dying as a reasonable option. They considered it a humane option. In contrast, doctors in places with strict prohibitions faced different choices. In countries like Italy or Georgia, doctors were less likely to choose physician-assisted death for themselves.
RELIEF OVER PROLONGATION: WHAT DOCTORS PREFER FOR THEMSELVES
Most doctors surveyed rejected life-prolonging treatments for themselves. This included treatments like CPR, tube feeding, or mechanical ventilation. This was especially common in terminal conditions. Instead, most doctors—over 90%—preferred intensified symptom relief. Many also supported palliative sedation to ease suffering without extending the dying process unnaturally.
This insight contradicts routine hospital practices. These practices often rely on aggressive treatments despite low survival chances. They also offer poor quality-of-life prospects for terminal patients.
CANCER OR ALZHEIMER’S: DOCTORS’ END-OF-LIFE CHOICES DIFFER SLIGHTLY
Doctors showed consistent preferences whether imagining themselves with cancer or Alzheimer’s, though slightly fewer favored assisted dying in Alzheimer’s-related scenarios.
For cancer, 54% saw euthanasia as a good option. For Alzheimer’s, that figure dipped to just over 51%, reflecting added ethical concerns and uncertainties. Physician-assisted suicide was seen positively by 65% of non-religious doctors. In contrast, only 38% of those with strong religious beliefs viewed it as a good option.
RELIGION, ROLE, AND EXPERIENCE INFLUENCE PREFERENCES
Doctors specializing in palliative care were less likely to favor euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide than general practitioners or hospital-based specialists.
Spiritual beliefs also mattered—religious doctors preferred symptom relief but were less likely to endorse practices that actively hasten death. Interestingly, those with more exposure to dying patients reported higher comfort levels with both euthanasia and palliative sedation. They cited firsthand observations of their effects.
FAMILIARITY BREEDS ACCEPTANCE IN LEGAL CONTEXTS
The study found doctors practicing in jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal were much more inclined to consider it a good option. They were up to three times more likely to do so.
Researchers believe this stems from cultural normalization and increased clinical exposure to end-of-life protocols, which reduce fear and uncertainty around such practices. They note that these physicians likely witnessed improved patient outcomes with legal assisted dying, leading to greater personal openness toward choosing it themselves.
DOCTORS OFTEN REJECT WHAT THEY ADMINISTER
Ironically, treatments that many doctors offer patients in hospitals—CPR, tube feeding, and ventilation—are seldom what they would want for themselves in similar scenarios.
This disparity suggests a potential ethical misalignment between personal values and standard clinical practice, especially in managing terminal conditions. The authors call for greater alignment between evidence-based care, patient wishes, and what medical professionals would genuinely choose for their own lives.
STUDY LIMITATIONS AND ETHICAL REFLECTIONS
While comprehensive, the study’s design has limitations—it may not fully represent all doctors globally, and some specialties were underrepresented in certain countries.
Still, the strong patterns observed across jurisdictions prompt serious ethical reflection on how modern medicine approaches end-of-life care for its most vulnerable patients.
