‘Mrs A’: a controversial or extreme case?

Wall, Jesse

doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105351

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These included: a lack of clarity in the woman's advance euthanasia directive (AED) regarding the circumstances in which she intended euthanasia to be performed, and in particular a suggestion that she wished to determine the time of death herself; doubts about the woman's competence at the time her AED was written; uncertainty about whether she was suffering intolerably (as Dutch law requires) at the time the euthanasia was carried out; and the doctor's use of covert sedation in the face of spoken and physical indications that the patient may not have wished for euthanasia at the time it was carried out. [1][2][3][4] The commentaries also relate these concerns to more general arguments about the moral legitimacy of AEDs given the limits of a person's insight into their uncertain future circumstances and the changes that can occur in their personality and preferences between the writing of a directive and its execution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution

Hughes

2020

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent Dutch euthanasia case, a woman underwent euthanasia on the basis of an advance directive, having first been sedated without her knowledge and then restrained by members of her family while the euthanasia was administered. This article considers some implications of the criminal court’s acquittal of the doctor who performed the euthanasia. Supporters of advance euthanasia directives have welcomed the judgement as providing a clarification of the law, especially with regard to the admissibility of contextual evidence in interpreting advance euthanasia directives, but suggested that the law regarding advance euthanasia directives should be further relaxed to remove the requirement of current suffering and that an unfortunate consequence of the prosecution is that it is likely to deter doctors from performing euthanasia even in more straightforward cases. This article argues that the court’s endorsement of the use of contextual evidence is problematic, that the case for prioritising prior decisions over current interests has not been advanced by the discussion surrounding this case and that worries about the alleged deterrent effect are not well founded.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution

Hughes

2020

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

‘Mrs A’: a controversial or extreme case?

Cited by 1 publication

References 4 publications

Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution

Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About