More Than Half of Doctors Would Consider Assisted Dying for Themselves

When facing advanced cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, more than half of physicians surveyed across eight different regions would consider assisted dying for themselves.

The finding comes from a new international study that reveals stark differences in doctors’ end-of-life preferences depending on where they practice.

The research, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, surveyed 1,157 doctors across North America, Europe, and Australia. What emerges is a complex picture of how local laws shape personal medical choices—even among those who dedicate their lives to healing others.

Location Matters More Than You’d Think

Perhaps the most striking finding? Geography plays a huge role in shaping doctors’ attitudes. In Belgium, where assisted dying has been legal since 2002, about 81% of physicians considered euthanasia a good option for advanced cancer. Compare that to Italy, where it remains illegal, and only 38% felt the same way.

The pattern held across different scenarios and regions. Doctors practicing where both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal options were three times more likely to consider euthanasia for cancer and nearly twice as likely for Alzheimer’s disease.

“This may be because these physicians are more familiar and comfortable with the practices and have observed positive clinical outcomes,” the researchers explained. “It also suggests that macro-level factors heavily impact personal attitudes and preferences, and physicians are likely influenced by what is considered ‘normal’ practice in their own jurisdiction.”

What Doctors Actually Want

Across all regions surveyed, doctors showed remarkable consistency in rejecting aggressive life-sustaining measures for themselves. Fewer than 1% would want CPR or mechanical ventilation in either cancer or Alzheimer’s scenarios. Only about 4% would choose tube feeding.

Instead, the overwhelming majority—94% for cancer and 91% for Alzheimer’s—preferred intensified symptom relief. This preference cuts across all countries, suggesting a universal medical understanding of what constitutes dignified end-of-life care.

The study included physicians from diverse legal environments: Oregon (where physician-assisted suicide has been legal since 1997), Wisconsin and Georgia (where it remains illegal), Canada, Belgium, Italy, and the Australian states of Victoria and Queensland.

The Specialty Divide

Not all doctors think alike, though. Palliative care physicians showed different preferences than general practitioners and other specialists. They were more likely to favor palliative sedation—a practice that induces unconsciousness to relieve suffering—over assisted dying options.

This makes sense when you consider their daily work. Palliative care doctors understand sedation better and may see it as more manageable than assisted dying. The preference might also reflect different ethical frameworks, since palliative sedation aligns with traditional medical values of relieving suffering without directly hastening death.

Religion played a predictable but significant role. Non-religious physicians were much more likely to consider physician-assisted suicide (65% versus 38%) or euthanasia (72% versus 40%) compared to those with strong religious beliefs.

The Alzheimer’s Dilemma

One of the study’s most thought-provoking findings involved the Alzheimer’s scenario. Even though the progressive nature of dementia makes competent assisted dying requests legally complex in most jurisdictions, substantial numbers of doctors would still consider it for themselves.

In Belgium, 67% of physicians considered euthanasia a good option for Alzheimer’s disease, despite legal hurdles. In Georgia, that number dropped to 37%. This highlights what researchers call “the need for further discourse on assisted dying, and in particular, end-of-life practices for complex conditions like Alzheimer’s disease.”

The finding reveals something profound about how medical professionals view cognitive decline and quality of life—perspectives that undoubtedly influence their patient care, even if they don’t realize it.

When Personal Meets Professional

These preferences matter because research shows doctors’ personal views significantly influence their clinical practice. General practitioners who have prepared their own advance directives tend to initiate end-of-life discussions more frequently with patients. Meanwhile, physicians’ perceptions of what patients want are often colored by their own preferences.

This creates ethical tensions. Should doctors share their personal preferences with patients facing similar decisions? Many physicians feel uncomfortable providing information they think might bias patients, yet patients often value knowing what their doctor would choose.

The study revealed an interesting contradiction in current medical practice. While doctors overwhelmingly prefer to avoid aggressive life-sustaining treatments for themselves, these same treatments remain widely used for patients at the end of life.

“These findings warrant reflection on current clinical practice since life-prolonging treatment is still widely used for patients, yet is not preferred by physicians for themselves,” the researchers noted.

Looking Forward

As more regions consider legalizing assisted dying, this research offers crucial insights into how laws shape medical culture. The study suggests that legalization doesn’t just provide new options—it fundamentally changes how healthcare professionals think about death and dying.

Whether this represents progress or concern depends largely on your perspective. But one thing seems clear: the conversation about end-of-life care is far from over, and the voices of those who guide others through these final decisions deserve careful attention.

For patients navigating these difficult waters, understanding that their doctor’s recommendations may be influenced by local laws and personal beliefs adds another layer of complexity to already challenging decisions. Perhaps the most important takeaway is the need for open, honest conversations about values, preferences, and what constitutes a good death in an era of expanding medical options.