Cited by 78Ethics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative and Oncologic CarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Should euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders be permitted? A systematic review of reasons

Nicolini, Marie E., Kim, Scott Y. H., Churchill, Madison E., Gastmans, Chris·2020·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) based on a psychiatric disorder (psychiatric EAS) continue to pose ethical and policy challenges, even in countries where the practice has been allowed for years. We conducted a systematic review of reasons, a specific type of review for bioethical questions designed to inform rational policy-making. Our aims were twofold: (1) to systematically identify all published reasons for and against the practice (2) to identify current gaps in the debate and areas for future research. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a search across seven electronic databases to include publications focusing on psychiatric EAS and providing ethical reasons. Reasons were grouped into domains by qualitative content analysis. Results: We included 42 articles, most of which were written after 2013. Articles in favor and against were evenly distributed. Articles in favor were mostly full-length pieces written by non-clinicians, with articles against mostly reactive, commentary-type pieces written by clinicians. Reasons were categorized into eight domains: (1) mental and physical illness and suffering (2) decisional capacity (3) irremediability (4) goals of medicine and psychiatry (5) consequences for mental health care (6) psychiatric EAS and suicide (7) self-determination and authenticity (8) psychiatric EAS and refusal of life-sustaining treatment. Parity- (or discrimination-) based reasons were dominant across domains, mostly argued for by non-clinicians, while policy reasons were mostly pointed to by clinicians. Conclusions: The ethical debate about psychiatric EAS is relatively young, with prominent reasons of parity. More direct engagement is needed to address ethical and policy considerations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291720001543

Cites

84 of 84 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
Nicolini, M. E., Kim, S. Y. H., Churchill, M. E., & Gastmans, C.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Nicolini, Marie E.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2020-06
Volume
50
Issue
8
Pages
1241-1256
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W3030034368
Cited by
77
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
euthanasia, assisted suicide, mental illness, bioethics, ethical arguments, discrimination, decision-making capacity, self-determination, authenticity, refusal of life-sustaining treatment, mental health services
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Euthanasia, Health Policy, Humans, Psychiatry, Mental Competency, Suicide, Assisted, Personal Autonomy

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