Cited by 320Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 25 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients With Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014

Open access
Kim, Scott Y. H., De Vries, Raymond G., Peteet, John R.·2016·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) of psychiatric patients is increasing in some jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands. However, little is known about the practice, and it remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of patients receiving EAS for psychiatric conditions and how the practice is regulated in the Netherlands. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This investigation reviewed psychiatric EAS case summaries made available online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015. Two senior psychiatrists used directed content analysis to review and code the reports. In total, 66 cases from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical and social characteristics of patients, physician review process of the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' actions. RESULTS: Of the 66 cases reviewed, 70% (n = 46) were women. In total, 32% (n = 21) were 70 years or older, 44% (n = 29) were 50 to 70 years old, and 24% (n = 16) were 30 to 50 years old. Most had chronic, severe conditions, with histories of attempted suicides and psychiatric hospitalizations. Most had personality disorders and were described as socially isolated or lonely. Depressive disorders were the primary psychiatric issue in 55% (n = 36) of cases. Other conditions represented were psychotic, posttraumatic stress or anxiety, somatoform, neurocognitive, and eating disorders, as well as prolonged grief and autism. Comorbidities with functional impairments were common. Forty-one percent (n = 27) of physicians performing EAS were psychiatrists. Twenty-seven percent (n = 18) of patients received the procedure from physicians new to them, 14 of whom were physicians from the End-of-Life Clinic, a mobile euthanasia clinic. Consultation with other physicians was extensive, but 11% (n = 7) of cases had no independent psychiatric input, and 24% (n = 16) of cases involved disagreement among consultants. The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet legal due care criteria. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Persons receiving EAS for psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands are mostly women and of diverse ages, with complex and chronic psychiatric, medical, and psychosocial histories. The granting of their EAS requests appears to involve considerable physician judgment, usually involving multiple physicians who do not always agree (sometimes without independent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of the physicians performing the EAS.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2887

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19
33 of 33
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The published RTE case summaries accurately and completely describe the psychiatric EAS cases.

    “We reviewed all online reports identified by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees (RTE) as psychiatric cases, available as of 1 June 2015.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 66 published cases are representative of all psychiatric EAS cases in the Netherlands during 2011–14.

    “66 cases from 2011–14 were reviewed.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • End-of-Life Clinic count conflates new physicians with all Clinic cases

    Minor

    The abstract says 15 of the 18 patients treated by a new physician were treated by End-of-Life Clinic physicians. The results say only 14 new physicians were affiliated with the Clinic; the fifteenth Clinic case was additional to those 14.

  • Percentage of cases without a psychiatrist consultant is miscalculated

    Minor

    Twenty-nine of 66 cases is about 44%, not 41%.

    Reported 41 · recomputed 43.939394

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 26 references

2 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Kim, S. Y. H., De Vries, R. G., & Peteet, J. R.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor3CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Scott Y. H.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2016-04-01
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
362
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2271580562
Cited by
320
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 14
FWCI
61.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • University of Rochester
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99CL999999)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
euthanasia, assisted suicide, mental illness, euthanasia legislation, depressive disorders, personality disorders, social isolation, loneliness, physician consultation, end-of-life care, Netherlands, case characteristics, physician disagreement, psychiatric hospitalization, suicide attempts, comorbidities, functional disability, prolonged grief disorder
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Chronic Disease, Decision Making, Major Depressive Disorder, Euthanasia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Physicians, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Social Isolation, Somatoform Disorders, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Suicide, Attempted, Treatment Refusal, Mental Competency, Suicide, Assisted, Medical Futility, Government Regulation, Standard of Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review