The role of the ethics expert in Spanish legislation on euthanasia and mental health.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1007/s40592-025-00228-3
Sergio Ramos-Pozón
{"title":"The role of the ethics expert in Spanish legislation on euthanasia and mental health.","authors":"Sergio Ramos-Pozón","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00228-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the assessment of mental capacity in the context of euthanasia, particularly when requested by patients with mental illnesses. It proposes a holistic alternative approach to the traditional functional model, arguing that the latter is insufficient to capture the complexity of these patients' decisions. Using approaches based on narrative, hermeneutic, and dialogical ethics, it offers an evaluation that considers the patient's life story, values, and context. Shared decision-making and empathy are identified as fundamental components to ensure informed and consensual decisions, promoting an environment of respect and mutual understanding. The article reviews Spanish legislation on euthanasia, highlighting the need to include medical ethics experts in the Guarantee and Evaluation Commissions. These experts provide a comprehensive ethical perspective essential for addressing the ethical complexities in euthanasia requests and ensuring fair decisions that reflect the patient's true will. It recommends reviewing and expanding current protocols, as well as including continuous ethics training to improve medical practice in this context. The conclusions suggest that an assessment of mental capacity based on ethical principles and an integrated narrative can significantly improve medical practice and decision-making in euthanasia, especially for these patients. Furthermore, the inclusion of ethics experts in the commissions can provide a more humane and just perspective, ensuring that decisions respect the patient's dignity and autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"82-96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202695/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00228-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the assessment of mental capacity in the context of euthanasia, particularly when requested by patients with mental illnesses. It proposes a holistic alternative approach to the traditional functional model, arguing that the latter is insufficient to capture the complexity of these patients' decisions. Using approaches based on narrative, hermeneutic, and dialogical ethics, it offers an evaluation that considers the patient's life story, values, and context. Shared decision-making and empathy are identified as fundamental components to ensure informed and consensual decisions, promoting an environment of respect and mutual understanding. The article reviews Spanish legislation on euthanasia, highlighting the need to include medical ethics experts in the Guarantee and Evaluation Commissions. These experts provide a comprehensive ethical perspective essential for addressing the ethical complexities in euthanasia requests and ensuring fair decisions that reflect the patient's true will. It recommends reviewing and expanding current protocols, as well as including continuous ethics training to improve medical practice in this context. The conclusions suggest that an assessment of mental capacity based on ethical principles and an integrated narrative can significantly improve medical practice and decision-making in euthanasia, especially for these patients. Furthermore, the inclusion of ethics experts in the commissions can provide a more humane and just perspective, ensuring that decisions respect the patient's dignity and autonomy.

伦理专家在西班牙安乐死和精神健康立法中的作用。
这篇文章探讨了在安乐死的背景下对精神能力的评估,特别是当精神疾病患者要求安乐死时。它提出了传统功能模型的整体替代方法,认为后者不足以捕捉这些患者决策的复杂性。使用基于叙事,解释学和对话伦理的方法,它提供了一个考虑到患者的生活故事,价值观和背景的评估。共同决策和共情被确定为确保知情和协商一致决策的基本组成部分,促进尊重和相互理解的环境。这篇文章审查了西班牙关于安乐死的立法,强调有必要将医学伦理专家纳入保障委员会和评估委员会。这些专家提供了一个全面的伦理观点,对于解决安乐死请求中的伦理复杂性和确保反映病人真实意愿的公平决定至关重要。它建议审查和扩大目前的规程,并包括持续的道德培训,以改进这方面的医疗实践。结论表明,基于伦理原则和综合叙事的心理能力评估可以显著改善安乐死的医疗实践和决策,特别是对于这些患者。此外,在委员会中纳入伦理专家可以提供更人道和公正的观点,确保决定尊重患者的尊严和自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信