没有(真正的)死亡权利:荷兰在精神疾病、晚期痴呆或多种老年综合症情况下获得医生协助死亡的障碍。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1007/s11019-023-10190-8
Caroline van den Ende, Eva Constance Alida Asscher
{"title":"没有(真正的)死亡权利:荷兰在精神疾病、晚期痴呆或多种老年综合症情况下获得医生协助死亡的障碍。","authors":"Caroline van den Ende, Eva Constance Alida Asscher","doi":"10.1007/s11019-023-10190-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Even in the Netherlands, where the practice of physician-assisted death (PAD) has been legalized for over 20 years, there is no such thing as a 'right to die'. Especially patients with extraordinary requests, such as a wish for PAD based on psychiatric suffering, advanced dementia, or (a limited number of) multiple geriatric syndromes, encounter barriers in access to PAD. In this paper, we discuss whether these barriers can be justified in the context of the Dutch situation where PAD is legally permitted for those who suffer unbearably and hopelessly as a result of medical conditions. Furthermore, we explore whether there are options to address some of the barriers or their consequences, both within the Dutch legal framework or by adjusting the legal framework, and whether these options are feasible. We conclude that although there are insufficient arguments to overrule the doctor's freedom of conscience in the Netherlands, there are ways to address some of the barriers, mainly by offering support to doctors that would be willing to support a request. Moreover, we believe it is morally required to reduce or mitigate where possible the negative consequences of the barriers for patients, such as the long waiting time for those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, because it is unlikely the adjustments suggested to the system will ensure reasonable access for these patient groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11076306/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No (true) right to die: barriers in access to physician-assisted death in case of psychiatric disease, advanced dementia or multiple geriatric syndromes in the Netherlands.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline van den Ende, Eva Constance Alida Asscher\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-023-10190-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Even in the Netherlands, where the practice of physician-assisted death (PAD) has been legalized for over 20 years, there is no such thing as a 'right to die'. Especially patients with extraordinary requests, such as a wish for PAD based on psychiatric suffering, advanced dementia, or (a limited number of) multiple geriatric syndromes, encounter barriers in access to PAD. In this paper, we discuss whether these barriers can be justified in the context of the Dutch situation where PAD is legally permitted for those who suffer unbearably and hopelessly as a result of medical conditions. Furthermore, we explore whether there are options to address some of the barriers or their consequences, both within the Dutch legal framework or by adjusting the legal framework, and whether these options are feasible. We conclude that although there are insufficient arguments to overrule the doctor's freedom of conscience in the Netherlands, there are ways to address some of the barriers, mainly by offering support to doctors that would be willing to support a request. Moreover, we believe it is morally required to reduce or mitigate where possible the negative consequences of the barriers for patients, such as the long waiting time for those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, because it is unlikely the adjustments suggested to the system will ensure reasonable access for these patient groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11076306/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10190-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10190-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

即使在荷兰,医生协助死亡(PAD)合法化已有 20 多年,也没有所谓的 "死亡权"。尤其是有特殊要求的患者,例如因精神痛苦、晚期痴呆或(少数)多种老年综合症而希望接受医生协助死亡的患者,在接受医生协助死亡时会遇到障碍。在本文中,我们将讨论在荷兰的情况下,这些障碍是否合理,因为在荷兰,法律允许那些因医疗条件而遭受难以忍受的痛苦和绝望的人使用 PAD。此外,我们还探讨了是否有办法在荷兰法律框架内或通过调整法律框架来解决某些障碍或其后果,以及这些办法是否可行。我们的结论是,尽管在荷兰没有足够的论据来推翻医生的良心自由,但还是有办法解决一些障碍,主要是向愿意支持请求的医生提供支持。此外,我们认为,从道义上讲,有必要尽可能减少或减轻这些障碍对病人造成的负面影响,如精神病患者漫长的等待时间,因为对制度的调整建议不太可能确保这些病人群体合理地获得治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No (true) right to die: barriers in access to physician-assisted death in case of psychiatric disease, advanced dementia or multiple geriatric syndromes in the Netherlands.

Even in the Netherlands, where the practice of physician-assisted death (PAD) has been legalized for over 20 years, there is no such thing as a 'right to die'. Especially patients with extraordinary requests, such as a wish for PAD based on psychiatric suffering, advanced dementia, or (a limited number of) multiple geriatric syndromes, encounter barriers in access to PAD. In this paper, we discuss whether these barriers can be justified in the context of the Dutch situation where PAD is legally permitted for those who suffer unbearably and hopelessly as a result of medical conditions. Furthermore, we explore whether there are options to address some of the barriers or their consequences, both within the Dutch legal framework or by adjusting the legal framework, and whether these options are feasible. We conclude that although there are insufficient arguments to overrule the doctor's freedom of conscience in the Netherlands, there are ways to address some of the barriers, mainly by offering support to doctors that would be willing to support a request. Moreover, we believe it is morally required to reduce or mitigate where possible the negative consequences of the barriers for patients, such as the long waiting time for those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, because it is unlikely the adjustments suggested to the system will ensure reasonable access for these patient groups.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
期刊最新文献
The future of AI: navigating between fear and euphoria. Navigating the uncommon: challenges in applying evidence-based medicine to rare diseases and the prospects of artificial intelligence solutions. Pain and temporality: a merleau-pontyian approach. Diagnostic staging and stratification in psychiatry and oncology: clarifying their conceptual, epistemological and ethical implications. Debates on humanization of human-animal brain chimeras - are we putting the cart before the horses?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1