ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Assisted suicide: assessment and evaluation of the ability to make a freely responsible decision].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article addresses the question of how the capacity to make a freely responsible decision in assisted suicide can be assessed and evaluated. Based on medical ethics and legal principles as well as international comparisons, it is argued that the decision to commit suicide places special demands on autonomy, decision-making and inner strength. The concept of "free responsibility" is analysed in contrast to legal capacity and capacity to consent and is located in its proximity to these concepts.An operationalisation is proposed that includes understanding, autonomous evaluation, sustainable decision-making and the ability to act independently. In addition, practical challenges for assessment are discussed, particularly with regard to the role of psychiatrists, the separation of functions and ensuring open-ended procedures.The article advocates a narrow definition of free responsibility and a standardised assessment practice based on established and proven concepts of assessment in forensic psychiatry in order to guarantee both the protection of vulnerable persons and the fundamental right to self-determination.
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.