Attitudes of atheists and Muslims toward

euthanasia.

Dionne Angela Donnelly

Module: PSYC222: Research Methods & Statistics

Word Count: 2056 (excluding tables and quotations)

2642 (including tables and quotations)

Abstract

Research has shown that people who are religious are less likely to support euthanasia. The

researchers hypothesised that Muslims would be less likely than atheists to agree with the

practise of euthanasia. An opportunity sample of 25 Muslim and 25 atheist participants were

surveyed on their attitudes towards euthanasia using a 5 response Likert scale. Following

reliability analysis, 19 items were removed and the questionnaire was redistributed to the

original participants. The scale was found to be tridimensional and showed inter-item

consistency and reliability over time. Atheists were significantly more likely to agree with the

practice of euthanasia than Muslims. The results support previous research in the area,

indicating a strong relationship between religion and attitude toward euthanasia. Future

research could follow a more qualitative route to provide a better understanding of the

relationship between religion and euthanasia.

Euthanasia is defined as “intentionally causing the death of a person, to...protect [them] from further

suffering” (Perry, n.d.). Assisted suicide occurs when the patient “performs the act of suicide. The

other person simple helps” (Perry, n.d.). In this study, ‘euthanasia’ was used to refer to both terms.

There are conflicting views as to whether euthanasia should be legalised (e.g. Mak, Elwyn &

Finlay, 2003; Roscoe, 1998; Wilson et al., 2000). Religious people are more likely to oppose

euthanasia (Gielen, van den Branden & Broeckart, 2009; see also, Anderson & Caddell, 1993; Aslan

& Cavlak, 2007; Førde, Aasland & Falkum, 1997; Haghbin, Streltzer & Danko, 1998; Ward & Tate,

1994).

Muslims believe we should “not take life which God has made sacred except in the course of

Justice” (Qur’an, 6:151, cited in Zahedi, et al., 2007, p.11). But, in Islamic law, removing

1

hindrances to death (i.e. life support) to ease suffering is allowed as long as death is not the primary

motivation (Sachedina, 2005, see also, Ebrahim, 2005). One study found that 85 per cent of Muslim

doctors are opposed to euthanasia (Ahmed, Kheir, Rahman, Ahmed & Abdalla, 2001). However,

other research suggests this high figure may be more to do with doctors’ experience with dying

patients (Roscoe, 1998). Aslan and Cavlak (2007) found that 40 per cent of Muslim students were

opposed to euthanasia. Conversely, they also found that 47 per cent accepted it.

An explanation may be degree of religiosity. Gearing and Lizardi (2009) state that decreased

suicidal behaviour is related to religious commitment, not membership of a specific religion (see

also Aslan & Cavlak, 2007; Donnison, 1997; Grassi, Magnani & Ercolani, 1999; Haghbin et al.,

1998). Therefore, it is important to compare religious groups with groups that are non-religious.

Although atheists have no specific belief system, they generally do not believe in God or the

afterlife (Lizardi & Gearing, 2009). Smith-Stoner (2007) found that 95 per cent of self-reported

atheists supported euthanasia. Aslan and Cavlak found that 86.7 per cent of atheist students were in

favour of euthanasia (2007). This is higher than the average: Horsfall, Alcocer, Duncan and Polk

(2001), found that 72-74 per cent of students had a positive attitude towards euthanasia.

An attitude is predisposition to attend to the social world in a favourable or unfavourable way

(Oskamp & Schultz, 2005, see also Reich & Adcock, 1976). Attitudes consist of three components:

affective, behavioural, and cognitive (ABC) (Triandis, 1971). Likert scales are used in the majority

of survey research measuring attitudes (Hinkin, 1998; Taylor & Heath, 1996).

New measures are important because attitudes change over time: Wolfe, Fairclough, Clarridge,

Daniels and Emanual (1999), observed that one third of patients changed their attitude to euthanasia

in a follow-up interview (see also, DeCesare, 2000). Also, people’s attitudes towards euthanasia

2

may be more developed following exposure to the issue, especially since the case of Terry Schiavo

(e.g. Annas, 2005; Perry, Churchill & Kirshner, 2005).

This study aimed to create a uni-dimensional Likert scale, assess the reliability of the scale over

time, and assess whether commitment to a religion leads to opposition of euthanasia. We predicted

that atheists would be more likely to agree with the practise of euthanasia than Muslims, as

indicated by previous research.

Method

Participants

25 Muslims and 25 atheists were found using opportunity sampling. Participants were aged between

17 and 36 (M = 21.38, SD = 3.07). Other demographics were not collected as they were deemed

unnecessary.

Materials

The pilot questionnaire (T1) (see Appendix 1) was created by a brainstorming session focusing on a

balance of positive and negative items to avoid acquiescence bias (Taylor & Heath, 1996).

Attempts at a balance between affective, behavioural and cognitive related items were made.

Questionnaire T1 consisted of 50 short, simple statements (in accordance with Hinkin, 1998)

relating to attitudes toward euthanasia. It was designed so that positive attitudes towards euthanasia

would achieve a high score and negative attitudes a low score. The participant information sheet

(see Appendix 3) was attached to both T1 and T2 (see Appendix 2) questionnaires. Following the

reliability analysis (see Appendix 5) 19 items were removed from the questionnaire (see Table 1).

As Cronbach’s alpha was high (.98, see Appendix 5), removal criteria were stringent and included

removal for violation of only one assumption. Questionnaire T2 consisted of 31 items originally

from Questionnaire T1.

3

Table 1: Item deletion list.Item No.

Item Reasons for deletion

1 I view death as a positive and natural life occurrence. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 64 Euthanasia should be punished by law. 413 Death is random and not determined by a higher power. 215 I would be morally obliged to euthanize someone who was

incapable of making the decision themselves.1, 2, 4, 5, 6

16 I would actively seek to punish those who assisted with eu-thanasia.

1, 2

19 When I think of someone committing suicide it makes me feel sad.

1, 2, 4, 6

21 I feel that death is the end. 3, 5, 626 Euthanasia is an easy way out of a difficult situation. 4, 5, 632 Death never really crosses my mind. 4, 5, 636 Religious or spiritual people are more likely to have a neg-

ative view of euthanasia.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

37 I would never consider ending my own life. 1, 438 I am not afraid of death 1, 4, 639 Euthanasia is immoral and the same as murder. 440 I would assist someone who wished to commit suicide. 141 Others’ judgement would stop me assisting euthanasia. 2, 4, 5, 646 Those who believe in the afterlife have a more positive

view of euthanasia.1, 2, 3, 4, 5

47 Everybody has the right to choose how and when they die. 448 I feel that everyone can be pushed to believe that suicide is

their only option.4

50 The method used to carry out euthanasia would affect my decision to carry it out on either myself or another person.

1, 41

Design

This study was a mixed design as participants filled out the scale twice (to test scale reliability) and

their responses then compared against one another to test for differences. This was done using a 5

response Likert scale (optimal for reliability, validity, discriminating power and test-retest

reliability, Preston & Colman, 1999). The independent variable (IV) was religious belief and

consisted of two levels; as participants were either Muslims or atheists (groups perceived by the

researchers to have strong opinions on death, to avoid central tendency bias). The dependent

variable (DV) was the extent to which participants would agree with the practise of euthanasia (i.e.

11= disparate mean [below 2.5, above 3.5]. 2 = disparate SD [below 1.05, above 1.7]. 3 = Negative inter-item correlations [for more than 10 items]. 4 = Low inter-item correlation [below .4 (Kim & Mueller, 1978, cited in Hinkin, 1998) in more than 5 items]. 5 = increases Cronbach’s alpha. 6 = Pearson’s correlation below .5.

4

T2 score). The predictor variable (PV) was T1 score and the outcome variable (OV) was T2 score.

Procedure

Questionnaire T1 was created by a group of five Psychology undergraduates as a pilot scale.

Questionnaires were distributed to self-reported Muslims and atheists. Participants were informed

of their right to withdraw and assured that their data would be confidential and anonymous (for

ethical reasons and to help avoid social desirability bias). Once the data was collected it was

analysed using SPSS to test for reliability, using the most accepted measure of reliability -

Cronbach’s alpha (Price and Mueller, 186, cited in Hinkins, 1998). Questionnaire T2 contained 31

questions which were all originally from Questionnaire T1. These were re-distributed to the same

participants as Questionnaire T1. This was followed by a second reliability analysis, t-test, and

linear regression analysis. No questions were excluded following the final analysis.

Results

T1 Reliability

A reliability analysis was conducted using the SPSS programme. Cronbach’s alpha was .98 (see

Appendix 5) indicating that the questionnaire had internal consistency. However, the mean inter-

item correlation was .42 (see Table 2), which is relatively low and indicated that the questionnaire

may be multi-dimensional. Therefore, a factor analysis using Varimax orthogonal rotation was

conducted which extracted 8 factors with Eigen values ≥ 1.0. These factors accounted for 79.47 per

cent of variation in participants’ responses (see Table 4 and Appendix 6). This means that whilst the

scale was measuring 8 different psychological constructs, only approximately 20 per cent of

responses were due to ‘noise’ in the data. The mean item means were 2.9, close to the optimal

number of 3, meaning that one group responded with mostly ‘strongly agree’ and the other ‘strongly

disagree’, the mean therefore showing a balance between the two extremes. Mean item variances

were 1.87 (see Table 2).

5

Table 2: Summary Item data – T1.

T2 Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was .98 (see Appendix 7), an increase on the previous questionnaire due to the

removal of 19 items from T1 (based on criteria set out in Table 1). Mean inter-item correlation

was .66 (see Table 3), which indicated that there were fewer factors than the previous questionnaire.

Factor analysis using Varimax orthogonal rotation extracted 3 factors with Eigen values ≥1.0. They

accounted for 77.67% of variation in participants’ responses (see Table 4 and Appendix 8). This

meant the scale was multi-dimensional, and only approximately 22 per cent of responses were due

to ‘noise’. In this instance, mean item-means decreased to 2.88, indicating that respondents were

less likely to respond in the extreme to the items. Mean item variances increased to 2.17 (see Table

3).

Table 3: Summary Item Data – T2.

Table 4: Factor Analysis – T1 and T2

Factors FoundVariance Accounted

For (%)

T1 8 77.62

T2 3 79.47

Test-Retest ReliabilityBivariate correlatory analysis showed that there was a significant positive relationship between

participants’ T1 and T2 scores (N = 50, r = .96, p < .001, see Appendix 9), indicating that the scale

6

N Mean (Variance)

Item Means 50 2.9 (.28)

Item Variances 50 1.87 (.5)

Inter-Item Correlations 50 .42 (.13)

N Mean (Variance)

Item Means 31 2.88 (.08)

Item Variances 31 2.17 (.42)

Inter-Item Correlations 31 .66 (.03)

was reliable over time. Linear regression analysis showed that scores on T1 predicted 91 per cent of

variance of T2 scores (R2 = .92, ∆R2 = .91, F (1, 48) = 522.7, p < .001, VIF = 1) (see Appendix 11).

The regression equation is y = .92x + 1.41 (where y = bx + c) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Scatterplot and regression line showing the relationship between T1 and T2 scores.

Criterion

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance was non-significant. Therefore, homogeneity of variance was

assumed. An independent sample t-test (one-tailed) found that atheists were significantly more

likely to agree with the practise of euthanasia (M = 116.28, SD = 11.64) than Muslims (M = 50.96,

SD = 10.3), (t(48) = 20.99, p < .01) (see Table 5 and Appendix 10).

Table 5 – Total means for each group at T1 and T2.

7

Group N Mean (SD)

T1 Total Score Atheist 25 122.96 (11.89)

Muslim 25 55.2 (10.82)

T2 Total Score Atheist 25 116.28 (11.64)

Muslim 25 50.96 (10.33)

Discussion

It was found that atheists were significantly more likely to agree with euthanasia than Muslims.

This is in concordance with previous research suggesting that Muslims are likely to be opposed to

the practise of euthanasia, due to their religious views (e.g. Sachedina, 2005, Ahmed et al., 2001;

Ebrahim, 2005; Zahedi, et al., 2007) and level of religious commitment (Gearing & Lizardi, 2009,

see also Donnison, 1997; Grassi, Magnani & Ercolani, 1999; Haghbin et al., 1998). Furthermore,

atheists have been shown to be highly supportive of euthanasia (Aslan & Cavlak, 2007; Smith-

Stoner, 2007). This study therefore provides supporting evidence for the above research.

In this study 88 per cent of atheists disagreed or strongly disagreed (the remaining 12 per cent were

neutral) with the statement “Euthanasia is never acceptable, even when performed by a loved one or

qualified physician” (see Appendix 2, Item 4). This points to their acceptance of the practise of

euthanasia. Despite being a high figure, it was lower than the 95 per cent of atheists who agreed

with euthanasia in Smith-Stoner’s (2007) study. The difference may be due to participant

characteristics, as her participants were all members of an atheist organisation, and the majority had

cared for an atheist who had died. However, the figure is slightly higher than the 86.7 per cent

found by Aslan and Cavlak (2007), which may be due to their smaller sample size (30 atheist

participants).

All Muslim participants agreed or strongly agreed with Item 4 thus indicating their opposition to

euthanasia. This figure is much higher than the 40 per cent who opposed euthanasia in the study by

Aslan & Cavlak (2007) and the 85 per cent found by Ahmed et al. (2001). This may be due to the

fact that the above studies were conducted in Islamic countries, and respondents in the UK may feel

more pressure to respond in a socially desirable way (Saroglou & Galand, 2004) in order to

strengthen other groups’ view of commitment to their religion. Conversely, atheists do not have

rigid set of beliefs (Gearing & Lizardi, 2009) and so may not feel as pressured to conform to others’

8

view of them.

Aside from assessing the effect of religion on attitudes to euthanasia, this study aimed to create a

uni-dimensional Likert scale, and assess the reliability of the scale over time. Ultimately a

tridimensional scale was created which was found to be highly reliable over time. However, there

were several limitations of the study; the first being a relatively small sample size, which could

cause difficulty for generalising to a wider population. The researchers also had difficulty in

balancing ABC components of the scale, meaning the scale may have been biased in favour of

affective and cognitive items.

In light of such limitations, there are a number of implications for future research. Other groups,

such as agnostics and Christians, could be included to evaluate whether different religious beliefs

will contrast with atheism as strongly as Islam did. Also, a more qualitative study could be

conducted, presenting hypothetical situations and asking participants to decide how they would

behave, followed by open questions asking about their opinions. This could help establish the

reasons why there is a difference between the groups. This may also establish if other factors, such

as the type of illness and time left to live, have an effect on whether euthanasia is deemed

appropriate.

In conclusion, it was found that atheists were significantly more likely to approve of euthanasia than

Muslims. This is in accordance with the majority of research into this area, which states that

religiosity exerts an effect on attitudes towards euthanasia.

9

References

Ahmed, A. M., Kheir, M. M., Rahman, A. A., Ahmed, N. H. & Abdalla, M. E. (2001). Attitudes

towards euthanasia and assisted suicide among Sudanese doctors. Eastern Mediterranean Health

Journal, 7(3), 551-555.

Anderson, J. G. & Caddell, D. P. (1993). Attitudes of medical professionals toward euthanasia.

Social Science and Medicine, 10(4), 923-928.

Annas, G. J. (2005). "Culture of Life" politics at the bedside - the case of Terri Schiavo. New

England Journal of Medicine, 352(16), 1710-1716.

Aslan, U. B. & Cavlak, U. (2007). Attitudes towards euthanasia among university students: A

sample based on Turkish population. Journal of Medical Science, 7(3), 396-401.

DeCesare, M. A. (2000). Public attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons:

1977 and 1996. Social Biology, 47(3/4), 263-276.

Donnison, D. (1997). Not just an issue of life and death – the British Social Attitudes Survey.

Retrieved 5 December 2009 from www.euthanasia.cc/97-1dvd.html

Ebrahim, A. F. M. (2005). [Review of the book Islamic Ethics of Life: Abortion, War and

Euthanasia, by Brockopp, J. (Ed.)]. Journal of Islamic Studies, 16(3), 376-378.

Førde, R., Aasland O. G. & Falkum, E. (1997). The ethics of euthanasia: Attitudes and practice

among Norwegian physicians. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 887-892.

Gearing, R. E. & Lizardi, D. (2009). Religion and suicide. Journal of Religion and Health, 48,332-

341.

Gielen, J, van den Branden, S. & Broeckart, B. (2009). Religion and nurses’ attitudes to euthanasia

and physician-assisted suicide. Nursing Ethics, 16(3), 303-318.

Grassi, L., Magnani, K. & Ercolani, M. (1999). Attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted

suicide among Italian primary care physicians. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management,

17(3), 188-196.

Haghbin, Z., Strelzer, J. & Danko, G. P. (1998). Assisted suicide and AIDS patients: A Survey of

10

physicians’ attitudes.Psychosomatics, 39, 18-23.

Hendin, H. (1995). Suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Crisis, 17(2), 90-93.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.

Horsfall, S., Alcocer, C. D., Duncan, T. C. & Polk, J. (2001). Views of euthanasia from an east

Texas university. Social Science Journal, 38, 617-627.

Lizardi, D. & Gearing, R. E. (2009). Religion and suicide: Buddhism, Native American and African

religions, atheism and agnosticism. Journal of Religion and Health, Online First, Article 53.

Retrieved 2 December 2009 from http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/w23

8202221436w03/fulltext.pdf

Mak, Y. Y. W., Elwyn, G. & Finaly, I. G. (2003). Patients’ voices are needed in debates on

euthanasia. British Medical Journal, 327, 213-215.

Oskamp, S. & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and Opinions (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Perry, C (n.d.). Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Retrieved 2 December 2009 from http://

www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/euth1.htm

Perry, J. E., Churchill, L. R. & Kirshner, H. S. (2005). The Terri Schiavo case: Legal, ethical, and

medical perspectives. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 744-748.

Preston, C. C. & Colman, A. M (1999). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:

Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica,

104,1-15.

Reich, B. & Adcock, C. (1976). Values, attitudes and behaviour change. London: Methuen & Co.

Roscoe, L. A. (1998). The many faces of physician-assisted suicide. Journal of Aging and identity,

(1), 35-48.

Sachedina, A. (2005). End-of-life: The Islamic view. Lencet, 366, 774-779.

11

Saroglou, V. & Galand, P. (2004). Identities, values, and religion: A study among Muslim, other

immigrant, and native Belgian young adults after the 9/11 attacks. Identity: An International

Journal of Theory and Research, 4(2), 97–132.

Smith-Stoner, M. (2007). End-of-life preferences for atheists. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 10(4),

923-928.

Taylor, B. & Heath, A. (1996). The use of double-sided items in scale construction. Centre for

Research into Elections and Social Trends Working Paper, 37.

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ward, B. J. & Tate, P. A. (1994). Attitudes among NHS doctors to requests for euthanasia. British

Medical Journal, 308,1332-1334.

Wilson, K. G., Scott, J. F., Graham, I. D., Kozak, J. F., Chater, S., Viola, R. A., de Faye, B. J.,

Weaver, L. A & Curran, D. (2000). Attitudes of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and

physician-assisted suicide. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 2454-2460.

Wolfe, J., Fairclough, D. L., Clarridge, B. R., Daniels, E. R. & Emanual, E. J. (1999). Stability of

attitudes regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia among oncology patients,

physicians and the general public. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 1274-1279.

Zahedi, F., Larijani, B. & Bazzaz, J. T. (2007). End of life ethical issues and Islamic views. Iranian

Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 6(5), 5-15.

Appendices

For appendices, please refer to the compact disc provided.

12