How can euthanasia and assisted suicide regulation guarantee patient health and autonomy? Lesson from nine European countries

Q3 Medicine
M. Gulino , M. Martelli , P. Ricci , S. Marinelli , G. Montanari Vergallo
{"title":"How can euthanasia and assisted suicide regulation guarantee patient health and autonomy? Lesson from nine European countries","authors":"M. Gulino ,&nbsp;M. Martelli ,&nbsp;P. Ricci ,&nbsp;S. Marinelli ,&nbsp;G. Montanari Vergallo","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This paper aims to reflect on whether substantive limits should be implemented and what procedural rules should be introduced by legislators wishing to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) to guarantee health and autonomy of both the mentally ill and other patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>We analyzed and compared the rules of the nine European States (the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Germany) where EAS is lawful.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The increase of countries that in the last years have implemented or introduced regulations on EAS leads us to think that: (a) substantive requirements should not be reduced, for example, allowing healthy people to access EAS; (b) substantive requirements must be ascertained through procedures that offer all of the guarantees of protection of the rights to life and self-determination provided for by the different regulations of the aforementioned countries, including, for example, clinical-psychological counselling to ensure autonomy of choice as well as preventive and ex-post control commission on compliance with substantive and procedural requirements. No law or ruling provided for the introduction of policies aimed at eliminating, before executing EAS, the socio-economic causes that led to the request to die.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>The framework regulating EAS should be integrated with policies and measures to guarantee favorable family and socio-economic conditions, offer full access to palliative care, and allow free and equal decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

This paper aims to reflect on whether substantive limits should be implemented and what procedural rules should be introduced by legislators wishing to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) to guarantee health and autonomy of both the mentally ill and other patients.

Methodology

We analyzed and compared the rules of the nine European States (the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Germany) where EAS is lawful.

Discussion

The increase of countries that in the last years have implemented or introduced regulations on EAS leads us to think that: (a) substantive requirements should not be reduced, for example, allowing healthy people to access EAS; (b) substantive requirements must be ascertained through procedures that offer all of the guarantees of protection of the rights to life and self-determination provided for by the different regulations of the aforementioned countries, including, for example, clinical-psychological counselling to ensure autonomy of choice as well as preventive and ex-post control commission on compliance with substantive and procedural requirements. No law or ruling provided for the introduction of policies aimed at eliminating, before executing EAS, the socio-economic causes that led to the request to die.

Perspective

The framework regulating EAS should be integrated with policies and measures to guarantee favorable family and socio-economic conditions, offer full access to palliative care, and allow free and equal decision-making.
安乐死和协助自杀法规如何保障病人的健康和自主权?来自9个欧洲国家的教训
本文旨在反思立法者是否应该实施实质性限制,以及应该引入哪些程序规则,以期使安乐死或协助自杀(EAS)合法化,以保障精神病患者和其他患者的健康和自主权。方法:我们分析并比较了EAS合法的九个欧洲国家(荷兰、比利时、卢森堡、奥地利、葡萄牙、西班牙、意大利、瑞士和德国)的规则。讨论过去几年来,越来越多的国家实施或引入了关于紧急医疗服务的法规,这使我们认为:(a)实质性要求不应降低,例如,允许健康的人获得紧急医疗服务;(b)必须通过程序确定实质性要求,这些程序提供上述国家不同条例所规定的保护生命权和自决权的一切保障,例如包括临床-心理咨询,以确保自主选择,以及预防和事后管制委员会遵守实质性和程序性要求。没有任何法律或裁决规定采取旨在在执行紧急安乐死之前消除导致请求死亡的社会经济原因的政策。缓和治疗框架应与政策和措施相结合,以保证有利的家庭和社会经济条件,提供充分的姑息治疗机会,并允许自由和平等的决策。
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
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
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