To describe the characteristics of persons with dementia receiving euthanasia/assisted suicide (EAS) and how the practice is regulated in the Netherlands. Designs: Qualitative directed content analysis of dementia EAS reports published by the Dutch euthanasia review committees between 2011 and October 5, 2018. Results: Seventy-five cases were reviewed: 59 concurrent requests and 16 advance requests. Fifty-three percent (40/75) were women, and 48% (36/75) had Alzheimer disease. Advance request EAS patients were younger, had dementia longer, and more frequently had personal experience with dementia. Some concurrent request EAS patients were quite impaired: 15% (9/ 59) were deemed incompetent by at least one physician; in 24% (14/59), patients' previous statements or current body language were used to assess competence. In 39% (29/75), patients' own physicians declined to perform EAS; in 43% (32/75), the physician performing EAS was new to them. Physicians disagreed about patients' eligibility in 21% (16/75). All advance request and 14 (25%) concurrent request patients had an advance euthanasia directive but the conditions of applicability often lacked specificity. In 5 of 16 advance request EAS and 2 of 56 concurrent request EAS cases, EAS procedure was modified (e.g., premedication). Twenty-five percent (4/16) of advance request cases did not meet legal due care criteria, in particular the "unbearable suffering" criterion. Conclusions: Advance and concurrent request EAS cases differ in age, duration of illness, and past experience. Advance request EAS cases were complicated by ambiguous directives, patients being unaware of the EAS procedure, and physicians' difficulty assessing "unbearable suffering." Notably, some concurrent request patients were quite impaired yet deemed competent by appeals to previous statements.

In euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (EAS) of persons with dementia, the controversy has mostly focused on decisionally incapable persons with very advanced dementia for whom the procedure must be based on a written advance euthanasia directive. This focus on advance euthanasia directive-based EAS has been accompanied by scant attention to the issue of decision-making capacity assessment of persons with dementia who are being evaluated for concurrent request EAS. We build on a previous analysis of concurrent request EAS cases from the Netherlands, which showed that many such cases involve persons with significant cognitive impairment. We use illustrative cases to describe the difficulty of determining decisional capacity in persons whose stage of dementia falls between severely impaired and mildly impaired. We show that the Dutch practice of capacity assessment in such dementia cases is difficult to reconcile with the widely accepted functional model of capacity—a model explicitly endorsed by the Dutch euthanasia review committees. We discuss why such deviations from the standard functional model might be occurring, as well as their ethical implications for dementia EAS policy and practice.

Many health systems have adopted online patient portals that allow patients to easily view their health records. As a result, notes written by health care professionals are increasingly read by both clinicians and patients, and clinicians in specialties that routinely involve sensitive information (eg, mental health care) have had to construct notes in a manner that respectfully promotes therapeutic relationships with patients. This article discusses whether ethics consultation services should share notes with patients through online portals and ways to handle practical implementation challenges. In support of sharing notes, this article appeals to an existing right that patients have to access their health record and suggests that sharing ethics consultation notes might help patients understand key clinical ethics concepts and practices. To claim one AMA PRA Category 1 Credit TM for the CME activity associated with this article, you must do the following: (1) read this article in its entirety, (2) answer at least 80 percent of the quiz questions correctly, and (3) complete an evaluation. The quiz, evaluation, and form for claiming AMA PRA Category 1 Credit TM are available through the AMA Ed Hub TM .

No abstract

No abstract