Suchergebnisse

Discussion of legislation of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, often euphemistically called 'assisted dying', frequently focuses on individual cases promoted by campaigners as the reason that the law to licence doctors to supply lethal drugs to patients requesting them should change under certain conditions. But such legislation has wider consequences that simply for a handful of cases, as the relentlessly increasing numbers of such deaths have shown.

AbstractIn 2018, the authors published their analysis of nine online case reports by the Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands, involving people with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder who were given euthanasia. In this commentary, they reflect further on the challenges of assessing "unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement," which is one of the Dutch legal due care criteria. Two more recent case reports are presented in detail, where doctors struggled to assess and sometimes came to divergent conclusions. In both cases, limitations resulting from the intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder were seen by physicians as causes of unbearable suffering, leading them to agreeing to the patient's euthanasia request. The authors discuss their concern about the implications of accepting the effects of lifelong disability as reasons for euthanasia, not only for individuals but for society as a whole.

Background: Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) have been legally possible in the Netherlands since 2001, provided that statutory due care criteria are met, including: (a) voluntary and well-considered request; (b) unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement; (c) informing the patient; (d) lack of a reasonable alternative; (e) independent second physician's opinion. 'Unbearable suffering' must have a medical basis, either somatic or psychiatric, but there is no requirement of limited life expectancy. All EAS cases must be reported and are scrutinised by regional review committees (RTE). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether any particular difficulties arise when the EAS due care criteria are applied to patients with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder. Methods: The 416 case summaries available on the RTE website (2012-2016) were searched for intellectual disability (6) and autism spectrum disorder (3). Direct content analysis was used on these nine cases. Results: Assessment of decisional capacity was mentioned in eight cases, but few details given; in two cases, there had been uncertainty or disagreement about capacity. Two patients had progressive somatic conditions. For most, suffering was due to an inability to cope with changing circumstances or increasing dependency; in several cases, suffering was described in terms of characteristics of living with an autism spectrum disorder, rather than an acquired medical condition. Some physicians struggled to understand the patient's perspective. Treatment refusal was a common theme, leading physicians to conclude that EAS was the only remaining option. There was a lack of detail on social circumstances and how patients were informed about their prognosis. Conclusions: Autonomy and decisional capacity are highly complex for patients with intellectual disabilities and difficult to assess; capacity tests in these cases did not appear sufficiently stringent. Assessment of suffering is particularly difficult for patients ...