PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NETHERLANDS

Until recently, physician assisted suicide was dealt with on the same basis as active voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. Over the last years, several cases relating to assistance in suicide of mental patients did raise specific issues, not addressed so far in the debate on euthanasia. One of these cases resulted in a Supreme Court decision. The paper summarizes this decision and comments on it from a legal point of view.     

ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN PSYCHIATRISTS AND OTHER PHYSICIANS

Euthanasia and physician assisted‐suicide are terms used to describe the process in which a doctor of a sick or disabled individual engages in an activity which directly or indirectly leads to their death. This behavior is engaged by the healthcare provider based on their humanistic desire to end suffering and pain. The psychiatrist's involvement may be requested in several distinct situations including evaluation of patient capacity when an appeal for euthanasia is requested on grounds of terminal somatic illness or when the patient is requesting euthanasia due to mental suffering. We compare attitudes of 49 psychiatrists towards euthanasia and assisted suicide with a group of 54 other physicians by means of a questionnaire describing different patients, who either requested physician‐assisted suicide or in whom euthanasia as a treatment option was considered, followed by a set of questions relating to euthanasia implementation. When controlled for religious practice, psychiatrists expressed more conservative views regarding euthanasia than did physicians from other medical specialties. Similarly female physicians and orthodox physicians indicated more conservative views. Differences may be due to factors inherent in subspecialty education. We suggest that in light of the unique complexity and context of patient euthanasia requests, based on their training and professional expertise psychiatrists are well suited to take a prominent role in evaluating such requests to die and making a decision as to the relative importance of competing variables.     

Public attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons: 1977 and 1996

This study replicates Singh's (1979) "classic" examination of correlates of euthanasia and suicide attitudes. The purposes of the current study were to assess (1) changes in public attitudes toward these voluntary termination of life practices, and (2) changes in the effects on attitudes of selected independent variables. I found Americans' approval of both euthanasia and suicide in 1996 to be higher than that in 1977. The increase in the approval of suicide, however, far outstripped that of euthanasia. Results of OLS regressions indicated that race, religious commitment, religious attendance, political identification, and suicide approval were statistically significant predictors of euthanasia approval. Only religious attendance and euthanasia approval were statistically significant predictors of suicide approval in both 1977 and 1996. The findings regarding euthanasia approval support those of Singh (1979); those regarding suicide approval do not. Triangulation of methods in future research is necessary to illuminate other aspects of these multifaceted issues.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 11. Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Euthanasia and assisted suicide involve taking deliberate action to end or assist in ending the life of another person on compassionate grounds. There is considerable disagreement about the acceptability of these acts and about whether they are ethically distinct from decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are punishable offences under Canadian criminal law, despite increasing public pressure for a more permissive policy. Some Canadian physicians would be willing to practise euthanasia and assisted suicide if these acts were legal. In practice, physicians must differentiate between respecting competent decisions to forgo treatment, providing appropriate palliative care, and acceeding to a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Physicians who believe that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legally accepted in Canada should pursue their convictions only through legal and democratic means.     

Active and Passive Physician‐Assisted Dying and the Terminal Disease Requirement

The view that voluntary active euthanasia and physician‐assisted suicide should be made available for terminal patients only is typically warranted by reference to the risks that the procedures are seen to involve. Though they would appear to involve similar risks, the commonly endorsed end‐of‐life practices referred to as passive euthanasia are available also for non‐terminal patients. In this article, I assess whether there is good reason to believe that the risks in question would be bigger in the case of voluntary active euthanasia and physician‐assisted suicide than in that of passive euthanasia. I propose that there is not. On that basis, I suggest that limiting access to voluntary active euthanasia and physician‐assisted suicide to terminal patients only is not consistent with accepting the existing practices of passive euthanasia.     

Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?

Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts. In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.     

“The correlates of attitudes toward euthanasia” revisited

Abstract

In a 1979 Social Biology article, B. K. Singh found religious affiliation to be an insignificant variable for the prediction of euthanasia and suicide attitudes. Reanalysis of this same data indicated that religious affiliation, coded as a discrete variable, Catholic vs. non‐Catholic, was masking existing differences among religious denominations. Using a chi‐square partitioning analysis comparing Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Non Religion categories indicated significant differences between Protestant and a combined category of Non Religion‐Jews for both euthanasia and suicide attitudes. Future efforts to predict euthanasia and suicide attitudes should include religious affiliation as dummy variable instead of an artificially dichotomized variable.     

‘SETTING A PRINCIPLED BOUNDARY’? EUTHANASIA AS A RESPONSE TO ‘LIFE FATIGUE’

The Dutch case of Brongersma presents novel challenges to the definition and evaluation of voluntary euthanasia since it involved a doctor assisting the suicide of an individual who was (merely?) ‘tired of life’. Legal officials had called on the courts to ‘set a principled boundary’, excluding such cases from the scope of permissible voluntary euthanasia, but they arguably failed. This failure is explicable, however, since the case seems justifiable by reference to the two major principles in favour of that practice, respect for autonomy and beneficence. Ultimately, it will be argued that those proponents of voluntary euthanasia who are wary of its use in such circumstances may need to draw upon ‘practical’ objections, in order to erect an otherwise arbitrary perimeter. Furthermore, it will be suggested that the issues raised by the case are not peculiarly Dutch in nature and that, therefore, there are lessons here for other jurisdictions too.     

Reflections on the state of current debate over physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

This paper is part of a larger project. My overall aim is to argue that the evolution of familiar forms of termination of life sustaining treatment, constituting so called passive euthanasia, has severely undercut the logic of every form of reasoning that has traditionally been used to oppose active euthanasia and assistance in suicide. Basically, there are two such forms of traditional opposition, each represented in a range of different versions. There is the inevitable argument concerning social utilities -- that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide will have bad social consequences. But more fundamentally, the idea persists that killing is intrinsically worse than letting-die in some sense that justifies the current practice of prohibiting the first while allowing the latter. In this paper, I first consider this latter claim. My ultimate strategy, as I have said, is to show that the nature of certain things we have all come to approve regarding termination of treatment makes it next to impossible to convincingly explain, in either of these ways, what is wrong with certain forms of assistance in suicide and euthanasia. In the second part of this paper I take another step in this direction by discussing, in a preliminary way, a special case of the argument from social risks.     

REFELCTIONS ON THE STATE OF CURRENT DEBATE OVER PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA

This paper is part of a larger project. My overall aim is to argue that the evolution of familiar forms of termination of life sustaining treatment, constituting so called passive euthanasia,¹ has severaly undercut the logic of every form of reasoning that has traditionally been used to oppose active euthanasia and assistance in suicide. Basically, there are two such forms of traditional opposition, each represented in a range of different versions. There is the inevitable argument concerning social utilities — that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide will have bad social consequences. But more fundamentally, the idea persists that killing is intrinsically worse than letting-die in some sense that justifies the current practice of prohibiting the first while allowing the latter. In this paper, I first consider this latter claim. My ultimate strategy, as I have said, is to show that the nature of certain things we have all come to approve regarding termination of treatment makes it next to impossible to convincingly explain, in either of these ways, what is wrong with certain forms of assistance in suicide and euthanasia. In the second part of this paper I take another step in this direction by discussing, in a preliminary way, a special case of the argument from social risks.     

Deciding on Death: Conventions and Contestations in the Context of Disability

Conflicts between bioethicists and disability theorists often arise over the permissibility of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Where mainstream bioethicists propose universalist guidelines that will direct action across a range of effectively disembodied situations, and take for granted that moral agency requires autonomy, feminist bioethicists demand a contextualisation of the circumstances under which moral decision making is conducted, and stress a more relational view of autonomy that does not require strict standards of independent agency. Nonetheless, neither traditional nor feminist perspectives have fully engaged with the critique of disabled people that they are consistently subjected to discriminatory, even life-threatening, practice and policy in biomedical and health care. The paper revisits some of the issues that drive the often highly polarised debate between bioethicists and disability theorists around the question of end of life decisions involving disabled people. While many bioethicists have doubtless been indifferent to the difference that disability makes, I am also concerned that the very proper demand of disability activists and theorists to scrutinise all end of life decisions for signs of discrimination and even violence has segued into something damagingly restrictive that silences internal dissension and stifles external debate. Given that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide may be issues where conventional argument on either side will founder on deeply felt convictions, I make the radical move to speculate on an entirely different, quasi-Deleuzian, approach to the value of life in order to shake up entrenched positions, and begin to think differently.     

Physician-assisted deaths under the euthanasia law in Belgium: a population-based survey

Background

Legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been heavily debated in many countries. To help inform this debate, we describe the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and the use of life-ending drugs without an explicit request from the patient, in Flanders, Belgium, where euthanasia is legal.

Methods

We mailed a questionnaire regarding the use of life-ending drugs with or without explicit patient request to physicians who certified a representative sample (n = 6927) of death certificates of patients who died in Flanders between June and November 2007.

Results

The response rate was 58.4%. Overall, 208 deaths involving the use of life-ending drugs were reported: 142 (weighted prevalence 2.0%) were with an explicit patient request (euthanasia or assisted suicide) and 66 (weighted prevalence 1.8%) were without an explicit request. Euthanasia and assisted suicide mostly involved patients less than 80 years of age, those with cancer and those dying at home. Use of life-ending drugs without an explicit request mostly involved patients 80 years of older, those with a disease other than cancer and those in hospital. Of the deaths without an explicit request, the decision was not discussed with the patient in 77.9% of cases. Compared with assisted deaths with the patient’s explicit request, those without an explicit request were more likely to have a shorter length of treatment of the terminal illness, to have cure as a goal of treatment in the last week, to have a shorter estimated time by which life was shortened and to involve the administration of opioids.

Interpretation

Physician-assisted deaths with an explicit patient request (euthanasia and assisted suicide) and without an explicit request occurred in different patient groups and under different circumstances. Cases without an explicit request often involved patients whose diseases had unpredictable end-of-life trajectories. Although opioids were used in most of these cases, misconceptions seem to persist about their actual life-shortening effects.Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are heavily debated issues in medical practice. In recent years, three European countries (Belgium and the Netherlands in 2002, and Luxemburg in 2009) and two US states (Oregon in 1997 and Washington State in 2009) decriminalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under formal conditions.^1–5 Canada is among a number of countries where the debate over legalization has flared up, with a proposed bill reaching Parliament and a pro-euthanasia proposal by the Quebec College of Physicians.⁶Understandably, the issue of euthanasia triggers much emotion and can be fraught with speculative arguments. Opponents of euthanasia often argue that legalizing the procedure will lead to a rise in the use of life-ending drugs without a patient’s explicit request, especially in vulnerable patient groups.^7–10 Thus far, however, no indications of this have been found in studies of physician-assisted deaths before and after legalization in Belgium and the Netherlands.^9,11,12 In Belgium, the percentage of deaths in which life-ending drugs were used remained stable, and the proportion without an explicit request from the patient decreased.¹² Other studies have shown that euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and the use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request are not confined to countries where physician-assisted death is legal.^13–16In addition to knowing the overall occurrence of physician-assisted death, it is equally important for an adequately informed, empirically based debate to know its performance in vulnerable patient groups and the care put into the decision and performance. In light of legalization and its alleged effects on the use of life-ending drugs without patient request, it is also important to map similarities and differences between euthanasia and the use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request. In this article, we report our investigation of demographic and clinical characteristics associated with physician-assisted deaths in Flanders, Belgium; the involvement of the patient, relatives and other caregivers in the decision-making process; reasons for the decisions; aspects of the treatment trajectory; and details of the performance in terms of drug use and the people administering the life-ending drugs.     

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: Disproportionate prevalence of women among Kevorkian's patients

End-of-life decisions are among the most difficult to make or study. When we examined these decisions made under the auspices and protection of stringent state laws, we found no gender bias among patients who chose to end their lives in the face of documented debilitating and terminal diseases. However, in the case of euthanasia as practiced by Jack Kevorkian, we found significant statistical bias against women. Moreover, other data have questioned whether all of Kevorkian's patients did, in fact, have debilitating and terminal illnesses. In this article, we explore why a gender disparity exists in end-of-life decision making. We conclude that if physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are to be integrated into any end-of-life medical care policy, stringent legal and medical safeguards will be required. Institution of these safeguards should prevent selection bias in a vulnerable population hastening death for reasons other than medically justifiable conditions or issues of individual autonomy, and should ensure that end-of-life decisions are truly reflective of competent personal choice, free from economic considerations or societal pressure.     

Voluntary euthanasia: a utilitarian perspective

Belgium legalised voluntary euthanasia in 2002, thus ending the long isolation of the Netherlands as the only country in which doctors could openly give lethal injections to patients who have requested help in dying. Meanwhile in Oregon, in the United States, doctors may prescribe drugs for terminally ill patients, who can use them to end their life--if they are able to swallow and digest them. But despite President Bush's oft-repeated statements that his philosophy is to 'trust individuals to make the right decisions' and his opposition to 'distant bureaucracies', his administration is doing its best to prevent Oregonians acting in accordance with a law that its voters have twice ratified. The situation regarding voluntary euthanasia around the world is therefore very much in flux. This essay reviews ethical arguments regarding voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective. I shall begin by asking why it is normally wrong to kill an innocent person, and whether these reasons apply to aiding a person who, when rational and competent, asks to be killed or given the means to commit suicide. Then I shall consider more specific utilitarian arguments for and against permitting voluntary euthanasia.     

The dangers of euthanasia and dementia: how Kantian thinking might be used to support non-voluntary euthanasia in cases of extreme dementia

Some writers have argued that a Kantian approach to ethics can be used to justify suicide in cases of extreme dementia, where a patient lacks the rationality required of Kantian moral agents. I worry that this line of thinking may lead to the more extreme claim that euthanasia is a proper Kantian response to severe dementia (and similar afflictions). Such morally treacherous thinking seems to be directly implied by the arguments that lead Dennis Cooley and similar writers to claim that Kant might support suicide. If rationality is the only factor in valuing a human life, then the loss of that rationality (however such loss might be defined) would allow us to use essentially utilitarian thinking in order to support non-voluntary euthanasia, since the patients themselves would no longer be moral agents that demand respect.     

Final report of the Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia: an English summary

An unofficial summary is provided of the Final Report of the Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia, submitted to the Minister of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs and the Minister of Justice on 19 Aug 1985. It describes the establishment of the State Commission, its working methods, and its recommendations for changes in the Criminal Code with regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Commission proposes that the Code be amended so that the intentional termination of another person's life at the latter's request would not be an offense if carried out by a doctor on a patient who is "in an untenable situation with no prospect of improvement." It makes recommendations regarding minors, the mentally handicapped, and prisoners, and regarding procedures for funeral arrangements and death certificates, the noninvolvement of parties other than patients and physicians in decision making, and the preparation and dispensing of drugs designed to terminate life.     

New developments in India concerning the policy of passive euthanasia

Euthanasia and assisted dying are illegal in India according to Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There have been a number of cases where the Indian High Courts and Indian Supreme Court issued differing verdicts concerning the right to life and the right to die. Nevertheless, on 7 March 2011, a paradigm shift happened as a result of the Indian Supreme Court's judgment on involuntary passive euthanasia in the case of Aruna Shanbaug. In its judgment, the Supreme Court requested the government to prepare a law on euthanasia. Accordingly, the 241st Report of the Law Commission of India proposed a bill to permit passive euthanasia. In May 2016 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) issued the draft bill for public comment in order to create an informed decision. The Indian people are divided on the issue of euthanasia. The majority of the scientific community welcome it, while some religious groups oppose it. Hindus, in general, express both supporting and opposing views on euthanasia, whereas, Christians and Muslims have hardened their opposition against it. The Supreme Court judgment and the Report of the Law Commission pave the way for the development of new policies pertaining to passive euthanasia by the central government of India. Once such legislation is passed, passive euthanasia may, and probably will, have an enormous impact on the cultural, political, public and medical spheres of India in the near future.     

Two Kinds of Suicide

In suicidology, the common view is that ‘rational’ suicides occur only rarely, because the competence of people who want to end their lives is compromised by mental illness. In the Netherlands and Flanders, however, patients’ requests for euthanasia or assistance in suicide are granted in 5300 and 1400 cases a year respectively, and in all these cases at least two doctors have confirmed the patient's competence. The combination of these two findings is puzzling. In other countries one would expect at least some of these people to end their own lives. The article argues that we can distinguish between two types of suicide with clustering characteristics. In cases of the first type, the agent doesn't carefully plan his action, doesn't communicate his plans to relatives or others, and uses violent means. In such cases it is reasonable to presume lack of competence. The other type has the opposite characteristics. The most plausible explanation of our problem is that suicides of the second kind are invisible to suicidology, because they tend not to be registered as suicides at all.     

Cancer patients’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: The influence of question wording and patients’ own definitions on responses

Objectives: The aims of this study were to: (1) investigate patients' views on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), and (2) examine the impact of question wording and patients' own definitions on their responses. Design: Cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients with cancer. Setting: Newcastle (Australia) Mater Hospital Outpatients Clinic. Participants: Patients over 18 years of age, attending the clinic for follow-up consultation or treatment by a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist or haematologist. Main Outcome Measures: Face-to-face patient interviews were conducted examining attitudes to euthanasia and PAS. Results: 236 patients with cancer (24% participation rate; 87% consent rate) were interviewed. Though the majority of participants supported the idea of euthanasia, patient views varied significantly according to question wording and their own understanding of the definition of euthanasia. Conclusions: Researchers need to be circumspect about framing and interpreting questions about support of 'euthanasia', as the term can mean different things to different people, and response may depend upon the specifics of the question asked.