ArticlePLoS medicine2025
Trends in assisted dying among patients with psychiatric disorders and dementia in Belgium: A health registry study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 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.
- Prevalence and trends of multimorbidity clusters in Belgian assisted dying practice: a health registry study.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssisted dying and euthanasia (ADE) for patients with psychiatric disorders or dementia have increased in jurisdictions where the practice is legal. In this study, we examine trends in euthanasia cases involving patients with these conditions in Belgium, where the law makes a distinction based on whether a patient's death is not expected in the foreseeable future (>12 months)-a common situation in cases of dementia or psychiatric disorders. METHODS AND
findingsWe use data on all cases of euthanasia reported to the Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia from 2002 (when the legislation was introduced) to 2023 (N = 33,592). Psychiatric disorders and dementia represent 1.27% and 0.92% of all cases, respectively. Using time-series zero-inflated negative binomial regression, we model trends by first examining interactions between euthanasia reasons and year, then extending to three-way interactions with patients' characteristics. The model calculates change in count and is replicated with an offset to account for demographic changes and generate rates. Our results show that euthanasia for psychiatric disorders and dementia showed distinct trends over time. Although slightly increasing, euthanasia for psychiatric disorders followed trends similar to the other types of euthanasia (count = 1.00 [95%CI: 0.98; 1.03]-rate = 1.02 [95%CI: 0.99; 1.04]), while euthanasia cases for dementia increased faster than other types of euthanasia (count = 1.03 [95%CI: 1.00; 1.06]-rate = 1.04 [95%CI: 1.01;1.07]). Trends in euthanasia for dementia and psychiatric disorders coincide with demographic changes. While euthanasia rates for psychiatric disorders were initially higher among women, the rate among men has been increasing over time. Regional trends show higher overall euthanasia rates in the Dutch-speaking population, but with faster increases in the French-speaking population. A key limitation of this study is the lack of information on patients' socio-economic profiles.
conclusionsIn Belgium, between 2002 and 2023, there are distinct trends for euthanasia for non-terminal illnesses. Euthanasia for psychiatric disorders followed similar trends as euthanasia for terminal illnesses, whereas euthanasia cases involving cognitive conditions increased at a faster rate. Furthermore, there were gender and regional differences, which diminished over time.
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.