ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
The Dutch practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders: a qualitative case review study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) in patients suffering from a psychiatric disorder (PD) is a controversial topic worldwide. In the Netherlands, this practice is regulated by law. All cases of EAS have to be reported and are assessed by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees (RTEs), who publish a selection of all cases on their website. Objective: To provide insight into the Dutch practice of EAS in patients suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Design setting and participants: We performed a retrospective case review study in which all published cases of EAS in patients suffering from a PD between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed. Interventions or exposures: Not applicable. Main outcomes and measures: Characteristics of patients who died by EAS because of suffering from a PD, characteristics of the reporting physician and consultant(s) and the RTEs assessment of published cases. Results: Of the 72 cases studied, the majority of patients were female (n=48, 67%), suffered from 3 or more conditions (n=38, 53%) and died by euthanasia instead of assistance in suicide (n=56, 78%). In 63% of cases (n=45), the life termination was performed by a physician from the Euthanasia Expertise center (EE). The RTEs' judgement that the case did not meet the due care criteria (n=11) was in all cases related to issues regarding the (advice of the) independent physician or psychiatric expert. Conclusion and relevance: This qualitative study shows that the RTEs attach great importance to a careful evaluation procedure of physicians handling EAS requests and to the physician demonstrating ability to reflect on his views, especially when the independent consultant evaluates the case different than the physician. Training for physicians and more transparency in the assessment of EAS requests in patients with a PD may lower the threshold for physicians to handle requests of these patients themselves. Trial registration: Not applicable.
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.