Voluntary Assisted Dying for Grief: Medicalisation, a Proposed Autonomy—Only Approach, and Lessons From Prepubescent Gender Care

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2026-08-11 Epub Date: 2025-11-28 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70063
Tessa Jane Holzman
{"title":"Voluntary Assisted Dying for Grief: Medicalisation, a Proposed Autonomy—Only Approach, and Lessons From Prepubescent Gender Care","authors":"Tessa Jane Holzman","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The recent addition of the diagnostic criteria for prolonged grief disorder has attracted criticism and concern about the undue medicalisation of grief and other existentially distressing yet normal life events. However, prolonged grief disorder currently forms the only pathway to VAD access for those suffering from extremely prolonged or unrelenting grief in the Netherlands, as this satisfies the requirement that the request must be due to a medical condition, and these criticisms of the disorder could jeopardise that access. A potential solution to this tension could be the currently debated autonomy—only approach to VAD, which circumvents issues of medicalisation by removing VAD from the medical domain. However, this approach raises other problems that require investigation in the context of grief specifically. In this article, I will first consider how VAD for grief is currently treated within Dutch VAD policy. This will involve an examination of prolonged grief disorder as a diagnosable condition, and how it relates to the general concern of undue medicalisation. Following this, I will consider possible ways in which persistence of a death wish due to grief can be established without the use of a medical diagnosis, as would be the case according to the autonomy-only framework for VAD. Ultimately, I will borrow some guidelines from the field of prepubescent gender care as an area that shares many morally relevant features with the question of VAD for grief and propose what I will be calling the “watchful grief affirming waiting” model.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 7","pages":"748-756"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70063","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The recent addition of the diagnostic criteria for prolonged grief disorder has attracted criticism and concern about the undue medicalisation of grief and other existentially distressing yet normal life events. However, prolonged grief disorder currently forms the only pathway to VAD access for those suffering from extremely prolonged or unrelenting grief in the Netherlands, as this satisfies the requirement that the request must be due to a medical condition, and these criticisms of the disorder could jeopardise that access. A potential solution to this tension could be the currently debated autonomy—only approach to VAD, which circumvents issues of medicalisation by removing VAD from the medical domain. However, this approach raises other problems that require investigation in the context of grief specifically. In this article, I will first consider how VAD for grief is currently treated within Dutch VAD policy. This will involve an examination of prolonged grief disorder as a diagnosable condition, and how it relates to the general concern of undue medicalisation. Following this, I will consider possible ways in which persistence of a death wish due to grief can be established without the use of a medical diagnosis, as would be the case according to the autonomy-only framework for VAD. Ultimately, I will borrow some guidelines from the field of prepubescent gender care as an area that shares many morally relevant features with the question of VAD for grief and propose what I will be calling the “watchful grief affirming waiting” model.

自愿协助悲伤死亡:医学化,建议的自主方法,以及从青春期前性别护理的教训。
最近增加的长期悲伤障碍的诊断标准引起了对悲伤和其他存在的痛苦但正常生活事件的不当医疗化的批评和关注。然而,在荷兰,长期悲伤障碍目前是那些遭受极度长期或无情悲伤的人获得VAD的唯一途径,因为这满足了必须是由于医疗条件的要求,而这些对这种障碍的批评可能会危及这种获得。解决这种紧张关系的一个潜在方法可能是目前备受争议的VAD自主治疗方法,该方法通过将VAD从医学领域移除来规避医学化问题。然而,这种方法提出了其他问题,需要在具体的悲伤背景下进行调查。在这篇文章中,我将首先考虑在荷兰的VAD政策中目前是如何治疗悲伤的VAD的。这将涉及对作为可诊断条件的长期悲伤障碍的检查,以及它与不适当的医疗化的一般关注的关系。在此之后,我将考虑一些可能的方法,在不使用医学诊断的情况下,可以确定由于悲伤而持续存在的死亡愿望,就像根据VAD的仅自主框架一样。最后,我将借用青春期前性别关怀领域的一些指导方针,因为这一领域与VAD治疗悲伤的问题有许多道德上的相关特征,我将提出我称之为“观察悲伤肯定等待”的模式。
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
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
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
小红书