Department of Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Oct 24;25(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01111-2.
The Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.
A qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.
Participants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.
The Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.
荷兰安乐死法允许在丧失决策能力的晚期痴呆症患者中根据预先的安乐死指令实施安乐死。然而,医生在评估此类情况下适当护理的标准时遇到了困难。本研究探讨了法律专家对这些标准的履行情况的看法,以及为支持医生的决策过程提供额外法律指导的可能性。
采用定性研究方法,对法律专家进行了研究。进行了两次焦点小组会议。数据分析采用主题内容分析和框架方法进行迭代。
参与者强调考虑患者当前意愿的重要性,并告知他们预先的安乐死指令的局限性。虽然代表和医疗保健专业人员可以协助解释意愿,但最终的安乐死决策由医生做出。参与者还讨论了由于偏好改变而导致预先录制的意愿所带来的挑战。此外,他们对患有晚期痴呆症的患者的生命意愿的价值提出了不同的看法。一些参与者将生命意愿置于预先的安乐死指令之上,而另一些人则质疑这些表达是否仍然反映了他们的意愿。参与者认为评估当前情况下无法承受的痛苦至关重要。参与者承认有必要解释预先的安乐死指令,但也有必要解释当前的表达,并将这种解释委托给医生,尽管他们会咨询多个来源,但仍将医生视为主要权威。
荷兰安乐死法的适当护理标准是开放的规范-在实质上是开放的,需要进一步阐述,主要根据具体情况和行业标准确定,将解释预先的安乐死指令和患者表达的责任交给医生。尽管有各种信息来源提供潜在支持,但医生在决策时可获得的额外法律指导有限。