ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
A qualitative focus group study on legal experts' views regarding euthanasia requests based on an advance euthanasia directive.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Euthanasia in advanced dementia: an empirical study of the decision-making process based on advance directives.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- Article
- Ethical Expertise Before and After Medically Assisted Dying: The Informal and Formal Role of the Ethicist in the Netherlands.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Determining intolerable suffering in the context of advance requests for medical assistance in dying.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Seeking consensus on dilemmas related to euthanasia in dementia based on an advance directive: a Delphi study from a medical, ethical and legal perspective.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.
resultsParticipants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.
conclusionsThe Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.