ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025
Seeking consensus on dilemmas related to euthanasia in dementia based on an advance directive: a Delphi study from a medical, ethical and legal perspective.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Euthanasia in advanced dementia: an empirical study of the decision-making process based on advance directives.Age and ageing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Euthanasia in dementia based on advance euthanasia directives (AEDs) is possible within the Dutch Euthanasia law. Yet, physicians struggle with the responsibility of interpreting the law's open norms in cases of advanced dementia, which includes the fulfilment of the due care criteria. This Delphi study aims to analyse arguments and seek consensus from medical, ethical and legal perspectives on ethical dilemmas in such cases. Thirty participants, equally divided in expertise, took part in a three-round Delphi with a total of 11 statements on ethical dilemmas. Despite differences in opinions and argumentations between panellists, consensus was reached on seven statements regarding different topics. Consensus was reached that the (behavioural) expressions of a person with dementia should be considered throughout the progression of decision-making disabilities. In such cases, a wish to live should be prioritised over an AED. Although substitute decision-making is not an option in case of euthanasia requests, both people around the person with dementia as well as their AED can be supportive in the decision-making process. Advance directives with formulations such as 'if I have to admitted to a nursing home, then I want euthanasia' are found to be infeasible. At all times, it is important to pay attention to alternatives to euthanasia, which includes following existing guidelines on problem behaviour. Physicians may benefit from the arguments pertaining to dilemmas encountered and the fulfilment of the due care criteria to either justify their decisions in euthanasia cases based on an AED, or to support decisions to refrain from euthanasia.
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.