The age limit for euthanasia requests in the Netherlands:a Delphi study among paediatric experts

BACKGROUND: The Dutch Euthanasia Act applies to patients 12 years and older, which makes euthanasia for minors younger than 12 legally impossible. The issue under discussion specifically regards the capacity of minors to request euthanasia.OBJECTIVE: Gain insight in paediatric experts' views about which criteria are important to assess capacity, from what age minors can meet those criteria, what an assessment procedure should look like and what role parents should have.METHODS: A Delphi study with 16 experts (paediatricians, paediatric nurses and paediatric psychologists) who work in Children Comfort Teams in Dutch academic hospitals. The questionnaire contained statements concerning criteria for capacity and procedural criteria. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement.RESULTS: The experts agreed that five criteria for capacity, found in a previous literature study, are all important. They agreed that some children between ages 9 and 11 could meet all the criteria. Consensus was reached for the statements that the entire medical team should be involved in the decision making and that a second independent expert must assess the case. Experts agreed that the parents' opinion is relevant and should always be taken into account, but it need not be decisive.CONCLUSION: This study shows that the age limit of 12 years in the Dutch Euthanasia Act is too strong according to paediatric experts. Letting go of the age limit or lowering the age limit combined with adequate capacity assessment for minors younger than 12 are options that should be discussed further.</p

Physicians’ views on the role of relatives in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide decision-making:a mixed-methods study among physicians in the Netherlands

Background: Relatives have no formal position in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) according to Dutch legislation. However, research shows that physicians often involve relatives in EAS decision-making. It remains unclear why physicians do (not) want to involve relatives. Therefore, we examined how many physicians in the Netherlands involve relatives in EAS decision-making and explored reasons for (not) involving relatives and what involvement entails. Methods: In a mixed-methods study, 746 physicians (33% response rate) completed a questionnaire, and 20 were interviewed. The questionnaire included two statements on relatives’ involvement in EAS decision-making. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore characteristics associated with involving relatives. In subsequent interviews, we explored physicians’ views on involving relatives in EAS decision-making. Interviews were thematically analysed. Results:The majority of physicians want to know relatives’ opinions about an EAS request (80%); a smaller group also takes these opinions into account in EAS decision-making (35%). Physicians who had ever received an explicit EAS request were more likely to want to know opinions and clinical specialists and elderly care physicians were more likely to take these opinions into account. In interviews, physicians mentioned several reasons for involving relatives: e.g. to give relatives space and help them in their acceptance, to tailor support, to be able to perform EAS in harmony, and to mediate in case of conflicting views. Furthermore, physicians explained that relatives’ opinions can influence the decision-making process but cannot be a decisive factor. If relatives oppose the EAS request, physicians find the process more difficult and try to mediate between patients and relatives by investigating relatives’ objections and providing appropriate information. Reasons for not taking relatives’ opinions into account include not wanting to undermine patient autonomy and protecting relatives from a potential burdensome decision. Conclusions: Although physicians know that relatives have no formal role, involving relatives in EAS decision-making is common practice in the Netherlands. Physicians consider this important as relatives need to continue with their lives and may need bereavement support. Additionally, physicians want to perform EAS in harmony with everyone involved. However, relatives’ opinions are not decisive.</p

Physicians’ views on the role of relatives in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide decision-making:a mixed-methods study among physicians in the Netherlands

Background: Relatives have no formal position in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) according to Dutch legislation. However, research shows that physicians often involve relatives in EAS decision-making. It remains unclear why physicians do (not) want to involve relatives. Therefore, we examined how many physicians in the Netherlands involve relatives in EAS decision-making and explored reasons for (not) involving relatives and what involvement entails. Methods: In a mixed-methods study, 746 physicians (33% response rate) completed a questionnaire, and 20 were interviewed. The questionnaire included two statements on relatives’ involvement in EAS decision-making. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore characteristics associated with involving relatives. In subsequent interviews, we explored physicians’ views on involving relatives in EAS decision-making. Interviews were thematically analysed. Results:The majority of physicians want to know relatives’ opinions about an EAS request (80%); a smaller group also takes these opinions into account in EAS decision-making (35%). Physicians who had ever received an explicit EAS request were more likely to want to know opinions and clinical specialists and elderly care physicians were more likely to take these opinions into account. In interviews, physicians mentioned several reasons for involving relatives: e.g. to give relatives space and help them in their acceptance, to tailor support, to be able to perform EAS in harmony, and to mediate in case of conflicting views. Furthermore, physicians explained that relatives’ opinions can influence the decision-making process but cannot be a decisive factor. If relatives oppose the EAS request, physicians find the process more difficult and try to mediate between patients and relatives by investigating relatives’ objections and providing appropriate information. Reasons for not taking relatives’ opinions into account include not wanting to undermine patient autonomy and protecting relatives from a potential burdensome decision. Conclusions: Although physicians know that relatives have no formal role, involving relatives in EAS decision-making is common practice in the Netherlands. Physicians consider this important as relatives need to continue with their lives and may need bereavement support. Additionally, physicians want to perform EAS in harmony with everyone involved. However, relatives’ opinions are not decisive.</p

Concept of unbearable suffering in context of ungranted requests for euthanasia: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians

Objective To obtain in-depth information about the views of patients and physicians on suffering in patients who requested euthanasia in whom the request was not granted or granted but not performed

Personal dignity in the terminally ill from the perspective of caregivers : a survey among trained volunteers and physicians

Background: Although dignity is increasingly considered a goal of palliative care, little research has evaluated the understanding of dignity at the end of life from a caregiver's perspective. Objective: The study objective was to investigate and compare the views of trained volunteers and SCEN physicians on maintaining dignity for patients reaching the end of life. Design: The study is a survey questionnaire study. Subjects: Subjects were two groups of caregivers involved in care for dying patients: trained volunteers (n=236) and end-of-life consultants (SCEN physicians; n=427). Measurements: Measurement was done via the Dutch version of the 22-item Patient Dignity Inventory on symptoms and experiences that have been shown to influence the sense of dignity in terminally ill patients. Respondents were asked to rate on a five-point scale the extent to which they considered the items as influential on dignity in terminally ill patients, and as problematic in practice in maintaining dignity for patients in the last phase of life. Results: Overall, volunteers indicated items more frequently as influential to dignity and as problematic in maintaining dignity at the end of life, compared to SCEN physicians. Volunteers gave significantly higher ratings than SCEN physicians to most of the social items, and to half of the psychological and existential items. Conclusions: It seems that SCEN physicians consider the physical aspects of suffering to be most influential and problematic in practice in preserving dignity, while volunteers think psychosocial aspects are most important in preserving dignity at the end of life. These findings suggest that the role and responsibilities of caregivers involved in care for terminally ill patients affect the factors that they think influence dignity

Motivations, aims and communication around advance directives A mixed-methods study into the perspective of their owners and the influence of a current illness

AbstractObjectiveWhat are motivations of owners of an advance directive (AD) to draft an AD, what do they aim for with their AD and do they communicate about their AD?MethodsWritten questionnaires were sent to a cohort of people owning different types of ADs (n=5768). A purposive sample of people suffering from an illness was selected from the cohort for an in-depth interview (n=29).ResultsAbout half of our population had no direct motivation to draft their AD. Most mentioned motivation for the other half was an illness of a family member or friend. Many different and specific aims for drafting an AD were mentioned. An often mentioned more general aim in people with different ADs was to prevent unnecessary lengthening of life or treatment (14–16%). Most respondents communicated about having an AD with close-ones (63–88%) and with their GP (65–79%). In the interviews people gave vivid examples of experiences of what they hoped to prevent at the end of life. Some mentioned difficulties foreseeing the future and gave examples of response shift.ConclusionADs can give directions to caregivers about what people want at the end of life.Practice implicationsADs have to be discussed in detail by their owners and caregivers, since owners often have specific aims with their AD

Current wishes to die; characteristics of middle-aged and older Dutch adults who are ready to give up on life:a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Literature shows that middle-aged and older adults sometimes experience a wish to die. Reasons for these wishes may be complex and involve multiple factors. One important question is to what extent people with a wish to die have medically classifiable conditions. AIM: (1) Estimate the prevalence of a current wish to die among middle-aged and older adults in The Netherlands; (2) explore which factors within domains of vulnerability (physical, cognitive, social and psychological) are associated with a current wish to die; (3) assess how many middle-aged and older adults with a current wish to die do not have a medically classifiable condition and/or an accumulation of age-related health problems. METHODS: Data of 2015/16 from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam were used for this cross-sectional study (1563 Dutch middle-aged and older adults aged between 57 and 99 years), obtained through structured medical interviews and self-reported questionnaires. Three experienced physicians assessed whether the participants with a current wish to die could be classified as having a medically classifiable condition and/or an accumulation of age-related health problems. RESULTS: N = 62 participants (4.0%) had a current wish to die. Having a current wish to die was associated with multiple characteristics across four domains of vulnerability, among which: self-perceived health, problems with memory, self-perceived quality of life and meaningfulness of life. Fifty-four participants with a current wish to die were assessed with having a medically classifiable condition, of which one was also assessed with having an accumulation of age-related health problems. Six people were assessed to have neither, and for two people it was unclear. CONCLUSION: A small minority of middle-aged and older adults in the Netherlands have a current wish to die. Most of them can be classified with a medical condition and one person with an accumulation of age-related health problems. Furthermore, the findings show that having a current wish to die is multi-faceted. There is still a need for more knowledge, such as insight in to what extent suffering stemming from the medical classifiable disease contributes to the development of the wish to die

Palliative care nursing education across the EU: results from an international survey study

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio