Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30953490›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical ethics2019

The involvement of family in the Dutch practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: a systematic mixed studies review.

Bernadette Roest, Margo Trappenburg, Carlo Leget

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Voluntariness of requests for assisted suicide].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernadette RoestUniversity of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512HD, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Bernadette.Roest@phd.uvh.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1178-8150
Margo TrappenburgUniversity of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512HD, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carlo LegetUniversity of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512HD, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University of Humanistic Studies · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily members do not have an official position in the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (EAS) in the Netherlands according to statutory regulations and related guidelines. However, recent empirical findings on the influence of family members on EAS decision-making raise practical and ethical questions. Therefore, the aim of this review is to explore how family members are involved in the Dutch practice of EAS according to empirical research, and to map out themes that could serve as a starting point for further empirical and ethical inquiry.

methodsA systematic mixed studies review was performed. The databases Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Emcare were searched to identify empirical studies describing any aspect of the involvement of family members before, during and after EAS in the Netherlands from 1980 till 2018. Thematic analysis was chosen as method to synthesize the quantitative and qualitative studies.

resultsSixty-six studies were identified. Only 14 studies had family members themselves as study participants. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis. 1) Family-related reasons (not) to request EAS. 2) Roles and responsibilities of family members during EAS decision-making and performance. 3) Families' experiences and grief after EAS. 4) Family and 'the good euthanasia death' according to Dutch physicians.

conclusionFamily members seem to be active participants in EAS decision-making, which goes hand in hand with ambivalent feelings and experiences. Considerations about family members and the social context appear to be very important for patients and physicians when they request or grant a request for EAS. Although further empirical research is needed to assess the depth and generalizability of the results, this review provides a new perspective on EAS decision-making and challenges the Dutch ethical-legal framework of EAS. Euthanasia decision-making is typically framed in the patient-physician dyad, while a patient-physician-family triad seems more appropriate to describe what happens in clinical practice. This perspective raises questions about the interpretation of autonomy, the origins of suffering underlying requests for EAS, and the responsibilities of physicians during EAS decision-making.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceDecision MakingEuthanasiaFamilyGuidelines as TopicHumansNetherlandsPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchSuicide, AssistedTerminally IllDecision-makingEnd-of-lifeEuthanasiaFamilyPhysician-assisted dying

Identifiers

PMID30953490
PMCPMC6451224
OpenAlexW2930631137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.