Coers Djura O, Sizoo Eefje M, Bloemen Maryam, de Boer Marike E, van der Heide Agnes, Hertogh Cees M P M, Leget Carlo J W, Hoekstra Trynke, Smalbrugge Martin
Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medicine for Older People, Faculty of Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medicine for Older People, Faculty of Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2024 Dec;25(12):105300. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105300. Epub 2024 Oct 10.
This study revisited the complexities faced by physicians in meeting due care criteria for euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia in The Netherlands. Despite increasing cases and legal provisions for advance euthanasia directives (AEDs), physicians encounter challenges with ethical issues, including patient communication and assessing unbearable suffering in patients who lack decisional capacity. This study examines the perspectives of elderly care physicians (ECPs), support and consultation on euthanasia in The Netherlands (SCEN) physicians, and euthanasia expertise center (EEC) physicians.
A multimethod descriptive study using a questionnaire with both closed and open-ended questions.
This study explores the complexities faced by physicians in handling AED-based euthanasia requests of patients with advanced dementia.
Baseline characteristics of physician subgroups were analyzed descriptively, and subgroup variations were assessed using univariate regression. Qualitative data underwent thematic content analysis.
With a 13.8% response rate, the study included 290 participants: 108 ECPs, 188 SCEN physicians, and 53 EEC physicians. Some had combined roles: ECP and SCEN physicians (n = 29), ECP and EEC physician (n = 1), SCEN physicians and EEC physicians (n = 17), and ECP, SCEN physicians, and EEC physicians (n = 6). ECPs received most AED-based euthanasia requests but only 7 EEC physicians and 1 SCEN physician performed euthanasia. All subgroups stressed the importance of patient communication. ECPs found euthanasia ethically justifiable only when communication was possible, highlighting the need to understand current euthanasia wishes and verify unbearable suffering. Effective communication was deemed crucial for confirming request relevance, identifying obstacles, involving patients, fostering trust, and alleviating fears. Physicians generally agreed that unbearable suffering could be assessed through patient expressions, observations, and family input.
Despite receiving AED-based euthanasia requests, few physicians proceeded. Subgroup analysis showed varying views, with ECPs emphasizing communication and EEC physicians focusing on determining unbearable suffering. All subgroups highlighted the importance of current patient expressions and involvement in the decision-making process.
本研究重新审视了荷兰医生在满足晚期痴呆患者安乐死适当照护标准时所面临的复杂性。尽管晚期安乐死指令(AEDs)的案例不断增加且有相关法律规定,但医生在伦理问题上面临挑战,包括与患者沟通以及评估缺乏决策能力患者的无法忍受的痛苦。本研究考察了老年护理医生(ECPs)、荷兰安乐死支持与咨询医生(SCEN)以及安乐死专业中心(EEC)医生的观点。
一项采用包含封闭式和开放式问题问卷的多方法描述性研究。
本研究探讨了医生在处理基于AEDs的晚期痴呆患者安乐死请求时所面临的复杂性。
对医生亚组的基线特征进行描述性分析,并使用单变量回归评估亚组差异。对定性数据进行主题内容分析。
回复率为13.8%,该研究纳入了290名参与者:108名ECPs、188名SCEN医生和53名EEC医生。有些人担任多种角色:ECP和SCEN医生(n = 29)、ECP和EEC医生(n = 1)、SCEN医生和EEC医生(n = 17)以及ECP、SCEN医生和EEC医生(n = 6)。ECPs收到的基于AEDs的安乐死请求最多,但只有7名EEC医生和1名SCEN医生实施了安乐死。所有亚组都强调了与患者沟通的重要性。ECPs认为只有在能够沟通时安乐死在伦理上才是合理的,突出了了解当前安乐死意愿和核实无法忍受的痛苦的必要性。有效的沟通被认为对于确认请求的相关性、识别障碍、让患者参与、建立信任以及减轻恐惧至关重要。医生们普遍同意可以通过患者表达、观察和家属提供的信息来评估无法忍受的痛苦。
尽管收到了基于AEDs的安乐死请求,但很少有医生进行操作。亚组分析显示观点各异,ECPs强调沟通,而EEC医生则专注于确定无法忍受的痛苦。所有亚组都强调了当前患者表达以及参与决策过程的重要性。