Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34241574›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2021

Experiences and views of Dutch general practitioners regarding physician-assisted death for patients suffering from severe mental illness: a mixed methods approach.

Rosalie Pronk, Nieke P Sindram, S van de Vathorst, D L Willems

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors.

Rosalie PronkDepartment of General Practice, Medical Ethics Section, Amsterdam UMC, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nieke P SindramDepartment of General Practice, Medical Ethics Section, Amsterdam UMC, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S van de VathorstDepartment of General Practice, Medical Ethics Section, Amsterdam UMC, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D L WillemsDepartment of General Practice, Medical Ethics Section, Amsterdam UMC, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands, physician-assisted death (PAD) is allowed under certain conditions. Patients who suffer from mental illnesses are not excluded from this practice. In 2018, general practitioners (GPs) performed 20 out of a total of 67 cases of EAS for psychiatric suffering.

objectiveMore insight into GPs' experiences and views with regard to PAD in psychiatry.

designThe data for this study were obtained through a survey amongst 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs and by in-depth interviews with 20 Dutch GPs.

settingA survey study and in-depth interviews. SUBJECTS: Dutch GPs.

results86 out of 101 GPs found it conceivable to perform EAS in case of somatic disease, and 51 out of 104 GPs found it conceivable in the case a patient suffered from a mental illness only. The main reason given for refusing an PAD request was that the criteria of due care were not met. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide. Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.

conclusionGPs are less likely to perform PAD for suffering from a mental illness, compared to somatic suffering. Some GPs apply an extra criterion of 'life-expectancy' in case of PAD for suffering from a mental illness. Refusing PAD based on a long life expectancy keeps open the possibility of recovery, but may also just prolong the suffering and add to the unbearableness of it.KEY POINTSCurrently, there is no qualitative research on what the views are of general practitioners regarding the subject of physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from severe mental disorders.General practitioners are less likely to consider a request for physician-assisted death by a patient suffering from a psychiatric disorder, compared to somatic suffering. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide.Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.Significance for the reader: Although allowed in the Netherlands, PAD in case of severe mental suffering remains a controversial topic. We need in-depth information about the actual practice of it to have an informed debate with regard to this subject.

Indexed as

EuthanasiaGeneral PractitionersMental DisordersPsychiatrySuicide, AssistedHumansNetherlandsGeneral PractitionersPhysician-assisted deathpsychiatric patientspsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID34241574
PMCPMC8293937

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.