Pereira's Attack on Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: Smoke and Mirrors
In: 19(3) Current Oncology 133
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: 19(3) Current Oncology 133
SSRN
Euthanasia was first legalized in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Currently they are among the few countries that also allow euthanasia on the basis of dementia, which is still considered controversial, both from a scientific and societal perspective. To date, euthanasia in dementia constitutes a small proportion of all Dutch and Belgian euthanasia cases. However, instances are rising due to a growing awareness among the general public about the possibilities of a self-chosen end-of-life and the willingness among medical professionals to perform euthanasia in individuals diagnosed with dementia. In both countries euthanasia is allowed under strict conditions in patients with dementia and decisional capacity regarding euthanasia, while in the Netherlands an advance euthanasia directive can also replace an oral request for euthanasia in those with late-stage dementia. Judging euthanasia requests from patients with dementia is complex and the assessment of the due care criteria (especially those related to decisional capacity and unbearable suffering) requires caution and great care. In this narrative review, we reflect on the legal regulation, clinical guidelines and societal debate regarding euthanasia in dementia in the Netherlands and Belgium. By discussing the 20 years of experience with the ethical dilemmas and controversial aspects surrounding this delicate topic, we hope to inform the preparation or implementation of new legislation on euthanasia in dementia in other countries.
BASE
In: Marijnissen , R M , Chambaere , K & Oude Voshaar , R C 2022 , ' Euthanasia in Dementia : A Narrative Review of Legislation and Practices in the Netherlands and Belgium ' , Frontiers in Psychiatry , vol. 13 , 857131 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.857131 ; ISSN:1664-0640
Euthanasia was first legalized in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Currently they are among the few countries that also allow euthanasia on the basis of dementia, which is still considered controversial, both from a scientific and societal perspective. To date, euthanasia in dementia constitutes a small proportion of all Dutch and Belgian euthanasia cases. However, instances are rising due to a growing awareness among the general public about the possibilities of a self-chosen end-of-life and the willingness among medical professionals to perform euthanasia in individuals diagnosed with dementia. In both countries euthanasia is allowed under strict conditions in patients with dementia and decisional capacity regarding euthanasia, while in the Netherlands an advance euthanasia directive can also replace an oral request for euthanasia in those with late-stage dementia. Judging euthanasia requests from patients with dementia is complex and the assessment of the due care criteria (especially those related to decisional capacity and unbearable suffering) requires caution and great care. In this narrative review, we reflect on the legal regulation, clinical guidelines and societal debate regarding euthanasia in dementia in the Netherlands and Belgium. By discussing the 20 years of experience with the ethical dilemmas and controversial aspects surrounding this delicate topic, we hope to inform the preparation or implementation of new legislation on euthanasia in dementia in other countries.
BASE
In: OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 0(0)
SSRN
In: Dierickx , S , Onwuteaka-Philipsen , B , Penders , Y , Cohen , J , van der Heide , A , Puhan , M A , Ziegler , S , Bosshard , G , Deliens , L & Chambaere , K 2020 , ' Commonalities and differences in legal euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in three countries: a population-level comparison ' , International Journal of Public Health , vol. 65 , no. 1 , pp. 65-73 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-019-01281-6
Objectives: To describe and compare euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) practice in Flanders, Belgium (BE), the Netherlands (NL) and Switzerland (CH). Methods: Mortality follow-back surveys among attending physicians of a random sample of death certificates. Results: We studied 349 EAS deaths in BE (4.6% of all deaths), 851 in NL (4.6% of all deaths) and 65 in CH (1.4% of all deaths). People who died by EAS were mostly aged 65 or older (BE: 81%, NL: 77% and CH: 71%) and were mostly diagnosed with cancer (BE: 57% and NL: 66%). Home was the most common place of death in NL (79%), while in BE and CH, more variation was found regarding to place of death. The decision to perform EAS was more frequently discussed with a colleague physician in BE (93%) and NL (90%) than in CH (60%). Conclusions: EAS practice characteristics vary considerably in the studied countries with legal EAS. In addition to the legal context, cultural factors as well as the manner in which legislation is implemented play a role in how EAS legislation translates into practice.
BASE