Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36626318›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2023

Dealing with requests for euthanasia in incompetent patients with dementia. Qualitative research revealing underexposed aspects of the societal debate.

Djura O Coers, Marike E de Boer, Eefje M Sizoo, Martin Smalbrugge, Carlo J W Leget, Cees M P M Hertogh

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Djura O CoersAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8082-0620
Marike E de BoerAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eefje M SizooAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martin SmalbruggeAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carlo J W LegetUniversity of Humanistic Studies, Care Ethics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cees M P M HertoghAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Humanistic Studies · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn the Netherlands, a case of euthanasia of an incompetent patient with dementia and an advance euthanasia directive (AED) caused great societal unrest and led to a petition signed by more than 450 physicians. In this paper, we investigate these physicians' reasons and underlying motives for supporting the 'no sneaky euthanasia' petition, with the aim of gaining insight into the dilemmas experienced and to map out topics in need of further guidance.

methodsTwelve in-depth interviews were conducted with physicians recruited via the webpage 'no sneaky euthanasia'. General topics discussed were: reasons for signing the petition, the possibilities of euthanasia in incompetent patients and views on good end-of-life care. Data were interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.

resultsReasons for supporting the petition are dilemmas concerning 'sneaky euthanasia', the over-simplified societal debate, physicians' personal moral boundaries and the growing pressure on physicians. Analysis revealed three underlying motives: aspects of handling a euthanasia request based on an AED, good end-of-life care and the doctor as a human being.

conclusionsAlthough one of the main reasons for participants to support the petition was the opposition to 'sneaky euthanasia', our results show a broader scope of reasons. This includes their experience of growing pressure to comply with AEDs, forcing them to cross personal boundaries. The underlying motives are related to moral dilemmas around patient autonomy emerging in cases of decision-making disabilities in advanced dementia. To avoid uncertainty regarding patients' wishes, physicians express their need for reciprocal communication.

Indexed as

DementiaEuthanasiaPhysiciansAdvance DirectivesHumansNetherlandsQualitative Researchadvance directivedementiaend-of-life careeuthanasiaolder peoplequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID36626318
PMCPMC9831268
OpenAlexW4315434435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.