No (true) right to die: barriers in access to physician-assisted death in case of psychiatric disease, advanced dementia or multiple geriatric syndromes in the Netherlands.

Even in the Netherlands, where the practice of physician-assisted death (PAD) has been legalized for over 20 years, there is no such thing as a 'right to die'. Especially patients with extraordinary requests, such as a wish for PAD based on psychiatric suffering, advanced dementia, or (a limited number of) multiple geriatric syndromes, encounter barriers in access to PAD. In this paper, we discuss whether these barriers can be justified in the context of the Dutch situation where PAD is legally permitted for those who suffer unbearably and hopelessly as a result of medical conditions. Furthermore, we explore whether there are options to address some of the barriers or their consequences, both within the Dutch legal framework or by adjusting the legal framework, and whether these options are feasible. We conclude that although there are insufficient arguments to overrule the doctor's freedom of conscience in the Netherlands, there are ways to address some of the barriers, mainly by offering support to doctors that would be willing to support a request. Moreover, we believe it is morally required to reduce or mitigate where possible the negative consequences of the barriers for patients, such as the long waiting time for those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, because it is unlikely the adjustments suggested to the system will ensure reasonable access for these patient groups.

Competence for physician-assisted death of patients with mental disorders: theoretical and practical considerations.

Physician-assisted death (PAD) of patients whose suffering does not stem from terminal conditions has become more prevalent during the last few decades. This paper is focused on decision-making competence for PAD, specifically in situations in which PAD is related solely to psychiatric illness. First, a theoretical analysis presents the premises for the argument that competence for physician-assisted death for psychiatric patients (PADPP) should be determined based on a higher threshold in comparison to the required competence for conventional medical interventions. Second, the higher threshold for decision-making competence for PADPP is illustrated. Third, several real PADPP cases are critically discussed, as an illustration to decision-making competence evaluations that would not have met the higher standard. Finally, a short summary of practical suggestions regarding the assessment of decision-making competence for PADPP is presented. Psychiatrists are called to address the ethical, legal, societal and clinical challenges related to PADPP and should be prepared for its probable expansion.

Physician-Assisted Dying: Acceptance by Physicians Only for Patients Close to Death.

This study reports on German physicians' views on legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, comparing this with a similar survey of UK doctors. A questionnaire was handed out to attendants of a palliative care and a pain symposium. Complete answers were obtained from 137 physicians. Similar to the UK study, about 30% of the physicians surveyed support euthanasia in case of terminal illness and more support physician-assisted suicide. In contrast, in both countries, a great majority of physicians oppose medical involvement in hastening death in non-terminal illnesses. The public and parliamentary discussion should face this opposition to assisted suicide by pain and palliative specialists.