关于法律专家对基于预先安乐死指令的安乐死请求的看法的焦点小组定性研究。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
D O Coers, S H Scholten, M E de Boer, E M Sizoo, M A J M Buijsen, B J M Frederiks, C J W Leget, C M P M Hertogh
{"title":"关于法律专家对基于预先安乐死指令的安乐死请求的看法的焦点小组定性研究。","authors":"D O Coers, S H Scholten, M E de Boer, E M Sizoo, M A J M Buijsen, B J M Frederiks, C J W Leget, C M P M Hertogh","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01111-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515591/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative focus group study on legal experts' views regarding euthanasia requests based on an advance euthanasia directive.\",\"authors\":\"D O Coers, S H Scholten, M E de Boer, E M Sizoo, M A J M Buijsen, B J M Frederiks, C J W Leget, C M P M Hertogh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-024-01111-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515591/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01111-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01111-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:荷兰安乐死法允许根据预先安乐死指令对缺乏决定能力的晚期痴呆症患者实施安乐死。然而,医生在评估此类情况下的适当护理标准时遇到了困难。本研究探讨了法律专家对满足这些标准的看法,以及为支持医生的决策过程提供更多法律指导的可能性:与法律专家进行了一项定性研究。进行了两次焦点小组会议。数据分析是反复进行的,使用主题内容分析法和框架法对数据进行解释:参与者强调了考虑患者当前意愿并告知他们预先安乐死指令局限性的重要性。虽然代理人和医疗保健专业人员可以协助解释患者的意愿,但安乐死的最终决定权在医生手中。与会者还讨论了预先录制的意愿因偏好改变而带来的挑战。此外,他们还对晚期痴呆症患者生命意愿的价值提出了不同的看法。一些参与者认为生命意愿优先于预先安乐死指令,而另一些参与者则质疑这种表达方式是否仍然反映了他们的意愿。与会者认为在当前情况下评估无法忍受的痛苦至关重要。参与者承认有必要解释预先安乐死指令,但也有必要解释当前的表达方式,他们将这一解释权委托给医生,并将医生视为主要权威,尽管他们曾咨询过多种信息来源:荷兰安乐死法的适当护理标准是开放性规范--实质上是开放性的,需要进一步阐述,主要是根据专业领域的标准逐案确定--将解释预先安乐死指令和患者表达的责任赋予了医生。尽管各种信息来源可能提供支持,但可用于协助医生做出决定的其他法律指导却很有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A qualitative focus group study on legal experts' views regarding euthanasia requests based on an advance euthanasia directive.

Background: The Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.

Results: Participants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.

Conclusions: The Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信