Ghent University Hospital's protocol regarding the procedure concerning euthanasia and psychological suffering.

BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding fears of overly permissive approaches and related pleas to refuse euthanasia for psychological suffering, some Belgian hospitals have declared that such requests could be admissible. However, some of these hospitals have decided that such requests have to be managed and carried out outside their walls. MAIN TEXT: Ghent University Hospital has developed a written policy regarding requests for euthanasia for psychological suffering coming from patients from outside the hospital. The protocol stipulates several due care criteria that go beyond the requirements of the Belgian Euthanasia Law. For instance, the legally required first and second consulted physicians should all be psychiatrists and be affiliated with a psychiatry department of a Flemish university hospital. Moreover, euthanasia for psychological suffering can only be performed if the advices of these consulted physicians are positive. Importantly, preliminary reflection by the multidisciplinary Hospital Ethics Committee was introduced to discuss every request for euthanasia for psychological suffering coming from outside the hospital. CONCLUSION: In this way, the protocol supports psychiatrists faced with the complexities of assessing such requests, improves the quality of euthanasia practice by ensuring transparency and uniformity, and offers patients specialised support and guidance during their euthanasia procedure. Nevertheless, some concerns still remain (e.g. relating to possible unrealistic patient expectations and to the absence of aftercare for the bereaved or for patients whose requests have been refused).

Reasons for continuous sedation until death in cancer patients: a qualitative interview study.

End-of-life sedation, though increasingly prevalent and widespread, remains a highly debated medical practice in the context of palliative medicine. This qualitative study aims to look more specifically at how health care workers justify their use of continuous sedation until death and which factors they report as playing a part in the decision-making process. In-depth interviews were held with 28 physicians and 22 nurses of 27 cancer patients in Belgium who had received continuous sedation until death in hospitals, palliative care units or at home. Our findings indicate that medical decision-making for continuous sedation is not only based on clinical indications but also related to morally complex issues such as the social context and the personal characteristics and preferences of individual patient and their relatives. The complex role of non-clinical factors in palliative sedation decision-making needs to be further studied to assess which medically or ethically relevant arguments are underlying daily clinical practice. Finally, our findings suggest that in some cases continuous sedation was resorted to as an alternative option at the end of life when euthanasia, a legally regulated option in Belgium, was no longer practically possible.

What are the barriers faced by medical oncologists in initiating discussion of palliative care? A qualitative study in Flanders, Belgium.

INTRODUCTION: Before referring patients to a palliative care service, oncologists need to inform them about disease stage and discuss prognosis, treatment options and possible advantages of specialized palliative care (SPC). They often find this a complex and emotionally difficult task. As a result, they may refer their patients to SPC too late in the disease course or even not at all. This study reports findings from interviews with Belgian medical oncologists identifying the barriers they experience to introduce palliative care to their patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions and were supported by a topic list. The transcripts were analysed during an iterative process using the grounded theory principles of open and axial coding until a final coding framework was reached. RESULTS: The study identified seven heterogeneous categories of barriers which discourage oncologists from discussing palliative care: oncologist-related barriers, patient-related barriers, family-related barriers, barriers relating to the physician referring the patient to the medical oncologist, barriers relating to disease or treatment, institutional/organizational barriers and societal/policy barriers. These categories are further refined into subcategories. DISCUSSION: These findings provide an explanation for the possible reasons why medical oncologists feel hampered in initiating palliative care and consequently discuss it rather late in the disease trajectory. The exploration and description of these barriers may serve as a starting point for revising the medical education of oncologists. They are also a reminder to hospital management and policy makers to be aware of the impact of these barriers on the daily practice of oncology.

Perspectives on the eligibility criteria for euthanasia for mental suffering caused by psychiatric disorder under the Belgian Euthanasia Law: A qualitative interview study among mental healthcare workers.

INTRODUCTION: Euthanasia in adults with psychiatric conditions (APC) is allowed in Belgium and impacts a variety of workers in this field, including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, psychologists, and support "buddies". This study examines their perspectives on the appropriateness of the current legal criteria for, and practice of, euthanasia in the context of psychiatry, and their suggestions to properly implement or amend these criteria. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 Dutch-speaking mental healthcare workers who had at least one experience with an APC requesting euthanasia, in Flanders and Brussels (Belgium), between August 2019 and August 2020. Interview transcripts were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: Our study shows that, for these mental healthcare workers, only one of the legal eligibility criteria to assess euthanasia requests by APC (i.e., unbearable suffering) is rather straightforward to interpret. In addition, there was a lack of consensus on what aspects of the Euthanasia Law should be modified and in what way. CONCLUSIONS: Many mental healthcare workers do not well understand or misinterpret the legal criteria for euthanasia involving APC. Criteria are sometimes defined so narrowly that euthanasia requests by APC are generally deemed ineligible or, alternatively, are stretched to allow for inclusion of cases that go beyond what the Law intended. Our study indicates the need for an authoritative professional code of conduct offering clear advice for Belgian euthanasia practice in the context of psychiatry. It is also recommended that future trainings are standardized, supported by the most important professional associations in the field, and freely available to all who are confronted with euthanasia requests from APC or who offer support to APC who consider euthanasia.

Pereira's attack on legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: smoke and mirrors.

OBJECTIVE: To review the empirical claims made in: Pereira J. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Curr Oncol 2011;18:e38-45. DESIGN: We collected all of the empirical claims made by Jose Pereira in "Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls." We then collected all reference sources provided for those claims. We compared the claims with the sources (where sources were provided) and evaluated the level of support, if any, the sources provide for the claims. We also reviewed other available literature to assess the veracity of the empirical claims made in the paper. We then wrote the present paper using examples from the review. RESULTS: Pereira makes a number of factual statements without providing any sources. Pereira also makes a number of factual statements with sources, where the sources do not, in fact, provide support for the statements he made. Pereira also makes a number of false statements about the law and practice in jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Pereira's conclusions are not supported by the evidence he provided. His paper should not be given any credence in the public policy debate about the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada and around the world.