The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there have been many studies of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States, national data are lacking. METHODS: In 1996, we mailed questionnaires to a stratified probability sample of 3102 physicians in the 10 specialties in which doctors are most likely to receive requests from patients for assistance with suicide or euthanasia. We weighted the results to obtain nationally representative data. RESULTS: We received 1902 completed questionnaires (response rate, 61 percent). Eleven percent of the physicians said that under current legal constraints, there were circumstances in which they would be willing to hasten a patient's death by prescribing medication, and 7 percent said that they would provide a lethal injection; 36 percent and 24 percent, respectively, said that they would do so if it were legal. Since entering practice, 18.3 percent of the physicians (unweighted number, 320) reported having received a request from a patient for assistance with suicide and 11.1 percent (unweighted number, 196) had received a request for a lethal injection. Sixteen percent of the physicians receiving such requests (unweighted number, 42), or 3.3 percent of the entire sample, reported that they had written at least one prescription to be used to hasten death, and 4.7 percent (unweighted number, 59), said that they had administered at least one lethal injection. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of physicians in the United States report that they receive requests for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and about 7 percent of those who responded to our survey have complied with such requests at least once.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Cited by
Depression, Hopelessness, and Desire for Hastened Death in Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer
Breitbart, W. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.22.2907 · Cited by 1,110
Dignity Therapy: A Novel Psychotherapeutic Intervention for Patients Near the End of Life
Chochinov, H. M., Hack, T., Hassard, T., Kristjanson, L. J., McClement, S., & Harlos, M. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.08.391 · Cited by 1,033
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8499 · Cited by 751
Dignity in the terminally ill: a developing empirical model
Chochinov, H. M., Hack, T., McClement, S., Kristjanson, L., & Harlos, M. (2002) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00084-3 · Cited by 733
Dignity-Conserving Care—A New Model for Palliative Care: Helping the Patient Feel Valued
Chochinov, H. M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.17.2253 · Cited by 725
Metadata
- Authors
- Meier, D. E., Emmons, C.-A., Wallenstein, S., Quill, T., Morrison, R. S., & Cassel, C. K.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1998-04-23
- Volume
- 338
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 1193-1201
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2318246172
- Cited by
- 491
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 46.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199804233381706
- The paper
- Meier, D. E., Emmons, C.-A., Wallenstein, S., Quill, T., Morrison, R. S., & Cassel, C. K. (1998). A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199804233381706
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.