This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robyn S. Shapiro, JD
Milwaukee, Wis

Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(6):641.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In reply

While Hamm's comments about one question in our survey¹ may be valid, they are moot and, therefore, were not worthy of mention in our analysis as printed in the ARCHIVES. Hamm observes that respondents who disagreed with the survey statement "[E]uthanasia should be limited to competent adults who request it as a result of their present situation and prognosis for recovery" either believed (1) that euthanasia should never be practiced or (2) that euthanasia should not be restricted only to that class of patients. Our survey results indicate that significantly more Christian Fundamentalists and Catholics disagreed with the statement, but Hamm apparently contends that because of ambiguity inherent in the question, we may not conclude that religious beliefs may ground many physicians' opposition to euthanasia. In fact, our conclusion that religious beliefs may have an impact on physicians' receptivity to euthanasia was not based on the respondents' . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?