Rooney William, Schuklenk Udo, van de Vathorst Suzanne
Department of Philosophy, Queen's University, Watson Hall, 99 University Avenue, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Department of Medical Ethics, University of Amsterdam, AMC Room J2-122 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Care Anal. 2018 Dec;26(4):326-343. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0344-8.
Some jurisdictions that have decriminalized assisted dying (like Canada) exclude psychiatric patients on the grounds that their condition cannot be determined to be irremediable, that they are vulnerable and in need of protection, or that they cannot be determined to be competent. We review each of these claims and find that none have been sufficiently well-supported to justify the differential treatment psychiatric patients experience with respect to assisted dying. We find bans on psychiatric patients' access to this service amount to arbitrary discrimination. Proponents of banning the practice ignore or overlook alternatives to their proposal, like an assisted dying regime with additional safeguards. Some authors have further criticized assisted dying for psychiatric patients by highlighting allegedly problematic practices in those countries which allow it. We address recent evidence from the Netherlands, showing that these problems are either misrepresented or have straightforward solutions. Even if one finds such evidence troubling despite our analysis, other jurisdictions need not adopt every feature of the Dutch system.
一些已将协助死亡合法化的司法管辖区(如加拿大)将精神病患者排除在外,理由是无法确定他们的病情无法治愈、他们易受伤害且需要保护,或者无法确定他们有行为能力。我们审视了这些说法,发现没有一个得到充分的有力支持,不足以证明精神病患者在协助死亡方面所遭受的差别待遇是合理的。我们发现禁止精神病患者获得这项服务属于任意歧视。禁止这种做法的支持者忽视或忽略了其提议的替代方案,比如带有额外保障措施的协助死亡制度。一些作者通过强调允许协助精神病患者死亡的国家中据称存在问题的做法,进一步批评了这一做法。我们分析了荷兰最近的证据,表明这些问题要么被歪曲,要么有直接的解决办法。即使有人不顾我们的分析而认为此类证据令人不安,其他司法管辖区也不必采纳荷兰制度的每一个特征。