Physician Aid in Dying for Dementia: The Problem With the Early vs. Late Disease Stage Distinction

被引:1
作者
Nicolini, Marie Elisabeth [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Ctr Biomed Eth & Law, Leuven, Belgium
[2] NIH, Dept Bioeth, Clin Ctr, Bldg 10, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
physician aid in dying; assisted suicide; euthanasia; dementia; policy; law; ethics; advance directive; DECISION-MAKING; DIRECTIVES;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyt.2021.703709
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Background: Physician aid in dying (PAD) based on dementia is a contentious, highly debated topic. Several countries are considering extending their existing laws to include requests in incompetent patients based on a previously written advance directive. Discussions about this issue often invoke a distinction based on disease stage. The Dutch practice uses this distinction in classifications of dementia PAD cases and in guidance for clinicians. This paper explores the problem with this distinction for assessments of persons at the margins of competence. The Problem: Dutch guidance for clinicians uses an early vs. late-stage disease distinction to refer to requests from competent and incompetent persons. However, the use of disease stages is problematic, both conceptually and empirically. Conceptually, because it goes against very functional model of competence that guidance recognizes. Empirically, because it creates problems for classifying and evaluating patients at the margins of competence. Possible Ways Forward: Classification of cases and guidance should be based on competence, not disease stage. This requires rethinking decision-making for patients with dementia. Several possibilities are described, ranging from redefining the scope and role of advance directives in this context to exploring different types of decision-making frameworks.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals
[2]   First prosecution of a Dutch doctor since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: what does the verdict mean? [J].
Asscher, Eva Constance Alida ;
van de Vathorst, Suzanne .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2020, 46 (02) :71-75
[3]  
EuthanasiaCode, 2018, REV PROC PRACT REG E
[4]  
Eyal N., INFORM CONSENT
[5]  
Hawkins J., 2020, Decision-making capacity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. Fall Edition, first published January 15, 2008
[6]   The role of advance euthanasia directives as an aid to communication and shared decision-making in dementia [J].
Hertogh, C. M. P. M. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2009, 35 (02) :100-103
[7]   Is this person with dementia (currently) competent to request euthanasia? A complicated and underexplored question [J].
Kim, Scott Y. H. ;
Mangino, Dominic ;
Nicolini, Marie .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2021, 47 (12) :E41
[8]   Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Persons With Dementia in the Netherlands [J].
Mangino, Dominic R. ;
Nicolini, Marie E. ;
De Vries, Raymond G. ;
Kim, Scott Y. H. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, 2020, 28 (04) :466-477
[9]   Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications [J].
Miller, David Gibbes ;
Dresser, Rebecca ;
Kim, Scott Y. H. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2019, 45 (02) :84-89
[10]   Supported Decision Making With People at the Margins of Autonomy [J].
Peterson, Andrew ;
Karlawish, Jason ;
Largent, Emily .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2021, 21 (11) :4-18