Mental Illness, Lack of Autonomy, and Physician-Assisted Death

2015 ◽  
pp. 59-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jukka Varelius
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Assisted Death

scholarly journals Feeling Seen, Being Heard: Perspectives of Patients Suffering from Mental Illness on the Possibility of Physician-Assisted Death in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalie Pronk ◽  
Dick L. Willems ◽  
Suzanne van de Vathorst
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Wish To Die ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Depth Interviews

AbstractPhysician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from a mental illness is allowed in the Netherlands under certain conditions but is a very controversial topic, mainly discussed by ethicists and physicians. The voice of the patient is rarely included in the debate, so we know little about what their views on the topic are. We aim to understand the views of patients with mental illness and wish to die with regard to the possibility of PAD in the Netherlands. The data for this qualitative study were collected through 21 in-depth interviews with Dutch patients who have a wish for PAD as a result of suffering from a mental illness. We identified four themes in relation to the meaning of PAD for the patients suffering from mental illness and wish to die. These themes are (1) Autonomy and self-determination, (2) ending the suffering, (3) recognition, and (4) a dignified end-of-life. The option of PAD for patients suffering from mental illnesses was considered of great importance to the patients who have a wish to die. We highlight the importance of ‘recognition’ for the situation of the patient, as this could lead to new perspective. We argue that psychiatrists need to reflect on providing this recognition in earlier phases of treatment, taking seriously and discussing a wish for PAD in treatment is beneficial to patients. It provides space for the patient to discuss their wishes and could cause them not wanting to die anymore.

Making a case for the inclusion of refractory and severe mental illness as a sole criterion for Canadians requesting medical assistance in dying (MAiD): a review

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107133
Author(s):  
Anees Bahji ◽  
Nicholas Delva
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Medical Assistance ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Medical Assistance In Dying ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Sole Criterion

BackgroundFollowing several landmark rulings and increasing public support for physician-assisted death, in 2016, Canada became one of a handful of countries legalising medical assistance in dying (MAiD) with Bill C-14. However, the revised Bill C-7 proposes the specific exclusion of MAiD where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition (MAiD MD-SUMC).AimThis review explores how some persons with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI) could meet sensible and just criteria for MAiD under the Canadian legislative framework.MethodsWe review the proposed Bill C-7 criteria (capacity, voluntariness, irremediability and suffering) as well as the nuances involved in separating a well-reasoned request for assisted suicide from what might be solely a manifestation of a SPMI.FindingsIn this paper, we argue against the absolute exclusion of patients with SPMIs from accessing MAiD. Instead, we propose that in some circumstances, MAiD MD-SUMC may be justifiable while remaining the last resort. Conducting MAiD eligibility assessments removes the need to introduce diagnosis-specific language into MAiD legislation. Competent psychiatric patients who request MAiD should not be treated any differently from other eligible candidates. Many individuals with psychiatric disorders will be incapable of consenting to MAiD. The only ethical option is to assess eligibility for MAiD on an individual basis and include as legitimate candidates those who suffer solely from psychiatric illness who have the decisional capacity to consent to MAiD.

scholarly journals What About Us? Experiences of Relatives Regarding Physician-Assisted Death for Patients Suffering from Mental Illness: A Qualitative Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalie Pronk ◽  
D. L. Willems ◽  
S. van de Vathorst
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Social Context ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Professional Support ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
The Road ◽  
Grieving Process ◽  
Somatic Illness ◽  
Wish To Die

AbstractPhysician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from mental illness is legally permitted in the Netherlands. Although patients’ relatives are not entrusted with a legal role, former research revealed that physicians take into account the patient’s social context and their well-being, in deciding whether or not to grant the request. However, these studies focussed on relatives’ experiences in the context of PAD concerning patients with somatic illness. To date, nothing is known on their experiences in the context of PAD concerning the mentally ill. We studied the experiences of relatives with regard to a PAD request by patients suffering from mental illness. The data for this study were collected through 12 interviews with relatives of patients who have or had a PAD request because of a mental illness. We show that relatives are ambivalent regarding the patient’s request for PAD and the following trajectory. Their ambivalence is characterised by their understanding of the wish to die and at the same time hoping that the patient would make another choice. Respondents’ experiences regarding the process of the PAD request varied, from positive (‘intimate’) to negative (‘extremely hard’). Some indicated that they wished to be more involved as they believe the road towards PAD should be a joint trajectory. To leave them out during such an important event is not only painful, but also harmful to the relative as it could potentially complicate their grieving process. Professional support during or after the PAD process was wanted by some, but not by all.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

Commentary

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Behavioral Disorders ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Behavioral Disorder ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Psychiatric Rating ◽  
Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document