Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665672›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026

[Assisted suicide: assessment and evaluation of the ability to make a freely responsible decision].

Norbert Nedopil, Peter Brieger

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Norbert NedopilAbteilung für Forensische Psychiatrie, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, LMU Klinikum, Universität München, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336, München, Deutschland. Norbert.Nedopil@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Peter Briegerkbo-Isar-Amper-Klinikum Region München, Haar bei München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingInformed ConsentMental CompetencyPersonal AutonomySuicide, AssistedForensic PsychiatryGermanyHumansRight to DieForensic medicineLegal thinkingLegislation & jurisprudenceMental healthRight to die

Identifiers

PMID41665672
PMCPMC12957117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.