Cited by 16Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Assessment of patient decision-making capacity in the context of voluntary euthanasia for psychic suffering caused by psychiatric disorders: a qualitative study of approaches among Belgian physicians

Schweitser, Frank, Stuy, Johan, Distelmans, Wim, Rigo, Adelheid·2021·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

Objective: In Belgium, people with an incurable psychiatric disorder can file a request for euthanasia claiming unbearable psychic suffering. For the request to be accepted, it has to meet stringent legal criteria. One of the requirements is that the patient possesses decision-making capacity. The patient’s decision-making capacity is assessed by physicians. The objective of our study is to provide insight in the assessment of decision-making capacity in the context of euthanasia for patients with psychic suffering caused by a psychiatric disorder. Method: Twenty-two semistructured interviews with psychiatrists and neurologists were analysed with NVivo, a qualitative analysis software to code and organise transcribed data. Results: Different views and approaches regarding decision-making capacity in the context of euthanasia emerged from the data. Most of the physicians have some knowledge of the cognitive ability approach on decision-making capacity. According to this approach, four abilities constitute decision-making capacity: communication, understanding, appreciation and reasoning. We observed differences in the way these abilities are valued in relation to competence. Some physicians take additional elements into consideration when assessing decision-making capacity. Physicians acquired their knowledge on the subject in many different ways. Most of the physicians reported that decision-making capacity was not part of their training. Conclusion: We conclude that physicians assess decision-making capacity in different ways and that personal values and beliefs influence their approach. As such, a common approach in assessing the decision-making capacity of a patient among the interviewed physicians is lacking. Less arbitrariness could be obtained by consistently implementing the cognitive ability approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/medethics-2019-105690

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Only one Dutch and one Belgian study have shown that the assessment of mental capacity differs among individual physicians, partly due to personal values and belief systems, and in some cases seems flawed, leading to dissensions among physicians on the evaluation outcome.

    “To our knowledge, only one Dutch and one Belgian study on this topic have shown that the assessment of this criterion differs among individual physicians (i.e. to some extent due to their personal values and belief system), 32 and, in some cases, seems even flawed, which has led to dissensions among physicians on the evaluation outcome. 17”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schweitser, F., Stuy, J., Distelmans, W., & Rigo, A.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Odisee, University of Applied Sciences (BE)
Corresponding author
Schweitser, Frank
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-08-03
Volume
47
Issue
12
Pages
e38-e38
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W3047042399
Cited by
16
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
decision-making capacity, voluntary euthanasia, psychological suffering, mental illness, physician assessment, competency assessment, physician training, personal values and beliefs, Belgian euthanasia law

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