The engagement of psychiatrists in the assessment of euthanasia requests from psychiatric patients in Belgium: a survey study.
Assisted suicide
Euthanasia
Mental disorders
Psychiatry
Survey study
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 08 2020
08 08 2020
Historique:
received:
25
03
2020
accepted:
20
07
2020
entrez:
11
8
2020
pubmed:
11
8
2020
medline:
30
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since its legalisation in 2002, the number of times euthanasia has been carried out in response to requests from adults with psychiatric conditions (APC) has continued to increase. However, little is known about why and how psychiatrists become engaged in the assessment of such euthanasia requests. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between November 2018 and April 2019 of 499 psychiatrists affiliated with the Flemish Psychiatry Association. Chi square/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine if, and to what extent, psychiatrists' backgrounds relate to their concrete experiences. The answers to the open question regarding motives for (non-) engagement were thematically coded. Two hundred one psychiatrists participated, a response rate of 40%. During their careers, 80% of those responding have been confronted with at least one euthanasia request from an APC patient and 73% have become involved in the assessment procedure. Their engagement was limited to the roles of: referring physician (in 44% of the psychiatrists), attending physician (30%), legally required 'advising physician' (22%), and physician participating in the actual administration of the lethal drugs (5%). Within the most recent 12 months of practice, 61% of the respondents have been actively engaged in a euthanasia assessment procedure and 9% have refused at least once to be actively engaged due to their own conscientious objections and/or the complexity of the assessment. The main motive for psychiatrists to engage in euthanasia is the patient's fundamental right in Belgian law to ask for euthanasia and the psychiatrist's duty to respect that. The perception that they were sufficiently competent to engage in a euthanasia procedure was greater in psychiatrists who have already had concrete experience in the procedure. Although the majority of psychiatrists have been confronted with euthanasia requests from their APC patients, their engagement is often limited to referring the request to a colleague physician for further assessment. More research is needed to identify the determinants of a psychiatrist's engagement in euthanasia for their APC patients and to discover the consequences of their non-, or their restricted or full engagement, on both the psychotherapeutic relationship and the course of the euthanasia request.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Since its legalisation in 2002, the number of times euthanasia has been carried out in response to requests from adults with psychiatric conditions (APC) has continued to increase. However, little is known about why and how psychiatrists become engaged in the assessment of such euthanasia requests.
METHODS
A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between November 2018 and April 2019 of 499 psychiatrists affiliated with the Flemish Psychiatry Association. Chi square/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine if, and to what extent, psychiatrists' backgrounds relate to their concrete experiences. The answers to the open question regarding motives for (non-) engagement were thematically coded.
RESULTS
Two hundred one psychiatrists participated, a response rate of 40%. During their careers, 80% of those responding have been confronted with at least one euthanasia request from an APC patient and 73% have become involved in the assessment procedure. Their engagement was limited to the roles of: referring physician (in 44% of the psychiatrists), attending physician (30%), legally required 'advising physician' (22%), and physician participating in the actual administration of the lethal drugs (5%). Within the most recent 12 months of practice, 61% of the respondents have been actively engaged in a euthanasia assessment procedure and 9% have refused at least once to be actively engaged due to their own conscientious objections and/or the complexity of the assessment. The main motive for psychiatrists to engage in euthanasia is the patient's fundamental right in Belgian law to ask for euthanasia and the psychiatrist's duty to respect that. The perception that they were sufficiently competent to engage in a euthanasia procedure was greater in psychiatrists who have already had concrete experience in the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the majority of psychiatrists have been confronted with euthanasia requests from their APC patients, their engagement is often limited to referring the request to a colleague physician for further assessment. More research is needed to identify the determinants of a psychiatrist's engagement in euthanasia for their APC patients and to discover the consequences of their non-, or their restricted or full engagement, on both the psychotherapeutic relationship and the course of the euthanasia request.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32770966
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02792-w
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02792-w
pmc: PMC7414658
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
400Subventions
Organisme : Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : G017818N
Pays : International
Organisme : Research Foundation Flanders
ID : 1162618 N
Pays : International
Références
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 23;17(1):203
pubmed: 28641576
Psychol Med. 2020 Mar;50(4):575-582
pubmed: 30829194
Health Policy. 2008 Sep;87(3):316-25
pubmed: 18314223
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Sep;75(5):845-53
pubmed: 22682367
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 8;20(1):400
pubmed: 32770966
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Mar;41(3):580-93
pubmed: 21145197
Psychosomatics. 2016 Nov - Dec;57(6):556-565
pubmed: 27590345
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 19;19(1):74
pubmed: 30782146
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Sep;92(3):313-8
pubmed: 23830237
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 25;7(10):e017628
pubmed: 29074515
Palliat Med. 2013 Jan;27(1):27-37
pubmed: 23104511
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 16;20(1):374
pubmed: 32678038
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 16;14:307
pubmed: 25030375
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005 Sep 24;149(39):2187-9
pubmed: 16223080
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 May - Jun;64:150-161
pubmed: 31122625
J Med Ethics. 2015 Aug;41(8):592-8
pubmed: 25693947