Cited by 44Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

What happens after a request for euthanasia is refused? Qualitative interviews with patients, relatives and physicians

Pasman, H. Roeline W., Willems, Dick L., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D.·2013·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective Obtaining in-depth information from both patient and physician perspectives about what happens after a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) is refused.Methods In-depth interviews with nine patients whose EAS request was refused and seven physicians of these patients, and with three relatives of patients who had died after a request was refused and four physicians of these patients. Interviews were conducted at least 6 months after the refusal.Results A wish to die remained in all patients after refusal, although it sometimes diminished. In most cases patient and physician stopped discussing this wish, and none of the physicians had discussed plans for the future with the patient or evaluated the patient's situation after their refusal. Physicians were aware of patients' continued wish to die.Conclusions Patients who are refused EAS may subsequently be silent about a wish to die without abandoning it. Open communication about wishes to die is important, even outside the context of EAS, because if people feel unable to talk about them, their quality of life may be further diminished.Practice implications Follow up appointments after refusal could give patients the opportunity to discuss their feelings and physicians to support them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.007

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pasman, H. R. W., Willems, D. L., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Pasman, H. Roeline W.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
313-318
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069603644
Cited by
44
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, desire for death, end-of-life communication, physician-patient communication, relatives of patients, follow-up care, quality of life
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Death, Communication, Decision Making, Euthanasia, Family, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Netherlands, Patients, Physician-Patient Relations, Suicide, Assisted, Qualitative Research, Refusal to Participate

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.

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