Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review and meta-analysis on Indian clinicians' attitudes toward euthanasia

Systematic review and meta-analysis on Indian clinicians' attitudes toward euthanasia
Photo by EqualStock / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider that pooled prevalence of euthanasia approval among Indian clinicians was 16 percent.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of attitudes toward euthanasia among Indian physicians and nurses. The scope was to estimate the prevalence of approval for euthanasia, narrowly defined as intentional administration of lethal drugs. The authors synthesized data from four studies involving 519 nurses and physicians. The key finding was a pooled prevalence of approval of 16% (95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.19). The authors noted that definitions of euthanasia varied considerably and that several studies combined attitudes toward treatment withdrawal with attitudes toward the administration of lethal drugs. These limitations affect the interpretation of the pooled estimate. The authors highlighted the need for conceptual clarity in future research to support accurate interpretation of empirical data and to strengthen the contribution of studies on ethical attitudes to ethical and palliative care scholarship. Practice relevance is restrained, emphasizing the importance of clear definitions for future work.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
INTRODUCTION: In India, the term is frequently used to describe a wide range of end-of-life practices, including withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and administration of lethal drugs. Such usage diverges from more narrow definitions that restrict euthanasia to the intentional administration of lethal drugs. OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis examines how euthanasia has been defined and operationalized in quantitative studies of Indian physicians' and nurses' attitudes, and estimates the prevalence of approval when euthanasia is defined narrowly. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies published from 2010 onward. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Studies were included in the meta-analysis only if they reported attitudes toward euthanasia as narrowly defined. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Definitions of euthanasia varied considerably, and several studies combined attitudes toward treatment withdrawal with attitudes toward the administration of lethal drugs. Four studies reporting on 519 nurses and physicians provided data suitable for meta-analysis. Approval of euthanasia, defined as the intentional administration of lethal drugs, ranged from 12% to 20%, with a pooled prevalence of 16% (95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.19). This prevalence is notably lower than in earlier reports on Indian healthcare professionals' attitudes. CONCLUSION: Definitional inconsistency substantially affects reported attitudes toward euthanasia in Indian research. When euthanasia is defined narrowly, approval among healthcare professionals is low and consistent across studies. These findings highlight the need for conceptual clarity in future research to support accurate interpretation of empirical data and to strengthen the contribution of studies on ethical attitudes to ethical and palliative care scholarship.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.