Cited by 20Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The impact of the euthanasia assessment procedure: a qualitative interview study among adults with psychiatric conditions

Open access
Verhofstadt, Monica, Chambaere, Kenneth, Pardon, Koen, Mortier, Freddy, Liégeois, Axel, Deliens, Luc, Audenaert, Kurt·2022·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Assisted dying for adults with psychiatric conditions (APC) is highly controversial but legally possible in a few countries, including Belgium. Previous research has suggested that the complex euthanasia assessment procedure may cause additional suffering in APC but may also induce positive experiences. This study reports on the impact of the euthanasia assessment procedure as experienced by APC on three counts: 1) their mental state, including death ideation; 2) their treatment trajectory; 3) their social relationships. Methods: We performed an in-depth qualitative interview study with 16 APC in Flanders, Belgium, who had voiced a euthanasia request between 2016–2020. Thematic coding was used. Findings: We interviewed 16 APC. Euthanasia assessment procedures brought out a plethora of experiences in APC, both favourable and unfavourable. Whereas thoughts of suicide remain present to a certain extent, being in the assessment procedure allows some APC to reconsider alternatives towards life, and also to attempt new treatment options. However, many APC experience ambivalence about the supposedly inherent desirability and dignity in euthanasia. Worries also surfaced about the rationale behind and effects of involvement of APCs’ social circle, and about the impact it could have on them. Conclusion: Further research, including other stakeholder perspectives, is recommended with a view to maximising favourable and minimising unfavourable impacts for all involved. In clinical practice attention to these impacts is paramount, and clear communication and management of expectations between physician and patient, seems appropriate to address the many ambivalent experiences that accompany APC during the euthanasia assessment procedure. Policy attention could in this regard go to clarifying certain sources of ambivalence and issues that are insufficiently addressed, such as modalities of relatives’ involvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-022-04039-2

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [5]Spanish Official Gazette. Ley Orgánica 3/2021, de 24 de Marzo, de Regulación de La Eutanasia.; 2021:34037–34049. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2021/03/24/3/con.
  2. [10]Federal Control and Evaluation Committee for Euthanasia (FCECE). Seventh Report to the Belgian Parliament. Vol 001. Brussels, Belgium; 2016. https://leif.be/data/press-articles/FCEED_-_Verslag_Wetgevende_Kamers_-_periode_2014-2015_25-10-16.pdf.
  3. [11]Federal Control and Evaluation Committee for Euthanasia (FCECE). Eighth Report to the Parliament (2016-2017). Brussels, Belgium; 2018. https://leif.be/data/press-articles/FCEEC_-_8_euthanasie-verslag_2016-2017-nl.pdf.
  4. [29]Belgian Official Gazette. Wet Tot Wijziging van de Wetgeving Betreffende de Euthanasie (15 Maart 2020).; 2020:16623. https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&table_name=wet&cn=2020031502.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verhofstadt, M., Chambaere, K., Pardon, K., Mortier, F., Liégeois, A., Deliens, L., & Audenaert, K.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
Verhofstadt, Monica
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2022-06-27
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
435-435
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283576794
Cited by
19
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (research project (G017818N) and PhD fellowship (1162618N))
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
assisted dying, death ideation, suicide, treatment trajectories, interpersonal relationships, family involvement, ambivalence, physician-patient communication, euthanasia policy, Belgium
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Communication, Euthanasia, Humans, Physicians, Qualitative Research

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