Characteristics of Belgian 'life-ending acts without explicit patient request' : a large-scale death certificate survey revisited

BACKGROUND: “Life-ending acts without explicit patient request,” as identified in robust international studies, are central in current debates on physician-assisted dying. Despite their contentiousness, little attention has been paid to their actual characteristics and to what extent they truly represent nonvoluntary termination of life. METHODS: We analyzed the 66 cases of life-ending acts without explicit patient request identified in a large-scale survey of physicians certifying a representative sample of deaths (n = 6927) in Flanders, Belgium, in 2007. The characteristics we studied included physicians’ labelling of the act, treatment course and doses used, and patient involvement in the decision. RESULTS: In most cases (87.9%), physicians labelled their acts in terms of symptom treatment rather than in terms of ending life. By comparing drug combinations and doses of opioids used, we found that the life-ending acts were similar to intensified pain and symptom treatment and were distinct from euthanasia. In 45 cases, there was at least 1 characteristic inconsistent with the common understanding of the practice: either patients had previously expressed a wish for ending life (16/66, 24.4%), physicians reported that the administered doses had not been higher than necessary to relieve suffering (22/66, 33.3%), or both (7/66, 10.6%). INTERPRETATION: Most of the cases we studied did not fit the label of “nonvoluntary life-ending” for at least 1 of the following reasons: the drugs were administered with a focus on symptom control; a hastened death was highly unlikely; or the act was taken in accordance with the patient’s previously expressed wishes. Thus, we recommend a more nuanced view of life-ending acts without explicit patient request in the debate on physician-assisted dying

State of palliative care development in European Countries with and without legally regulated physician-assisted dying.

A

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

Pereira\u27s Attack on Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: Smoke and Mirrors

In a paper published in Current Oncology, University of Ottawa palliative care physician Jose Pereira states that the, “laws and safeguards [in countries in which euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized] are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions, and that transgressions are not prosecuted.” He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an “illusion.” In the present paper, we expose problems with the evidence base provided and relied upon by Pereira. It should be noted that we provide only examples of each of the categories of mistakes made by Pereira. The original work contains more, but the examples given should suffice to demonstrate that Pereira’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence provided by him. We conclude that 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

Preferences of patients with advanced lung cancer regarding the involvement of family and others in medical decision-making

Objective: To explore the preferences of competent patients with advanced lung cancer regarding involvement of family and/or others in their medical decision-making, and their future preferences in case of loss of competence. Methods: Over 1 year, physicians in 13 hospitals in Flanders, Belgium, recruited patients with initial non-small-cell lung cancer, stage IIIb or IV. The patients were interviewed with a structured questionnaire every 2 months until the fourth interview and every 4 months until the sixth interview. Results: At inclusion, 128 patients were interviewed at least once; 13 were interviewed 6 consecutive times. Sixty-nine percent of patients wanted family members to be involved in medical decision-making and this percentage did not change significantly over time. One third of these patients did not achieve this preference. Ninety-four percent of patients wanted family involvement if they lost competence, 23% of these preferring primary physician control over decision-making, 41% shared physician and family control, and 36% primary family control. This degree of preferred family involvement expressed when competent did not change significantly over time at population level, but did at individual level; almost half the patients changed their minds either way at some point during the observation period. Conclusions: The majority of patients with lung cancer wanted family involvement in decision-making, and almost all did so in case of future loss of competence. However, as half of the patients changed their minds over time about the degree of family involvement they wanted if they lost competence, physicians should regularly rediscuss a patient's preferences