The Lack of Adequate Scientific Evidence Regarding Physician-assisted Death for People with Psychiatric Disorders Is a Danger to Patients

Medical assistance in dying for people living with mental disorders: a qualitative thematic review

BACKGROUND

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) sparks debate in several countries, some of which allow or plan to allow MAiD where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition (MAiD-MD). Since MAiD-MD is becoming permissible in a growing number of jurisdictions, there is a need to better understand the moral concerns related to this option. Gaining a better understanding of the moral concerns at stake is a first step towards identifying ways of addressing them so that MAiD-MD can be successfully introduced and implemented, where legislations allow it.

METHODS

Thus, this article aims (1) to better understand the moral concerns regarding MAiD-MD, and (2) to identify potential solutions to promote stakeholders' well-being. A qualitative thematic review was undertaken, which used systematic keyword-driven search and thematic analysis of content. Seventy-four publications met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Various moral concerns and proposed solutions were identified and are related to how MAiD-MD is introduced in 5 contexts: (1) Societal context, (2) Healthcare system, (3) Continuum of care, (4) Discussions on the option of MAiD-MD, (5) MAiD-MD practices. We propose this classification of the identified moral concerns because it helps to better understand the various facets of discomfort experienced with MAiD-MD. In so doing, it also directs the various actions to be taken to alleviate these discomforts and promote the well-being of stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of MAiD-MD applications, which is part of the context of MAiD-MD practices, emerges as the most widespread source of concern. Addressing the moral concerns arising in the five contexts identified could help ease concerns regarding the assessment of MAiD-MD.

Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard

BACKGROUND

Irremediability is a key requirement for euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders (psychiatric EAS). Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium ask clinicians to assess irremediability in light of the patient's diagnosis and prognosis and 'according to current medical understanding'. Clarifying the relevance of a default objective standard for irremediability when applied to psychiatric EAS is crucial for solid policymaking. Yet so far, a thorough examination of this standard is lacking.

METHODS

Using treatment-resistant depression (TRD) as a test case, through a scoping review in PubMed, we analyzed the state-of-the-art evidence for whether clinicians can accurately predict individual long-term outcome and single out irremediable cases, by examining the following questions: (1) What is the definition of TRD; (2) What are group-level long-term outcomes of TRD; and (3) Can clinicians make accurate individual outcome predictions in TRD?

RESULTS

A uniform definition of TRD is lacking, with over 150 existing definitions, mostly focused on psychopharmacological research. Available yet limited studies about long-term outcomes indicate that a majority of patients with long-term TRD show significant improvement over time. Finally, evidence about individual predictions in TRD using precision medicine is growing, but methodological shortcomings and varying predictive accuracies pose important challenges for its implementation in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the claim that, as per available evidence, clinicians cannot accurately predict long-term chances of recovery in a particular patient with TRD. This means that the objective standard for irremediability cannot be met, with implications for policy and practice of psychiatric EAS.

Searching for relief from suffering: A patient-oriented qualitative study on medical assistance in dying for mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was introduced into Canadian legislation in 2016. Mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition (MI-SUMC) is excluded from eligibility; this is expected to change in 2024. Incurability, intolerable suffering, capacity to make healthcare decisions, and suicidality have been publicly debated in connection with mental illness. Few studies have explored the views of persons with mental illness on the introduction and acceptability of MAiD MI-SUMC; this study aimed to fill this gap. Thirty adults, residing in Ontario, Canada, who self-identified as living with mental illness participated. A semi-structured interview including a persona-scenario exercise was designed to discuss participants' views on MAiD MI-SUMC and when it could be acceptable or not. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively analyze data. Codes and themes were developed after extensive familiarization with the dataset. A lived-experience advisory group was engaged throughout the study. We identified six themes: The certainty of suffering; Is there a suffering threshold to be met? The uncertainty of mental illness; My own limits, values, and decisions; MAiD MI-SUMCas acceptable when therapeutic means, and othersupports, have been tried to alleviate long-term suffering; and Between relief and rejection. These themes underline how the participants' lived experience comprised negative impacts caused by long-term mental illness, stigma, and in some cases, socioeconomic factors. The need for therapeutic and non-therapeutic supports was highlighted, along with unresolved tensions about the links between mental illness, capacity, and suicidality. Although not all participants viewed MAiD MI-SUMC as acceptable for mental illness, they autonomously embraced limits, values, and decisions of their own along their search for relief. Identifying individual and contextual elements in each person's experience of illness and suffering is necessary to understand diverse perspectives on MAiD MI-SUMC.

Debating Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Death in People with Psychiatric Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last 30 years, medical assistance in dying (MAiD) including euthanasia (EU) and physician-assisted death (or suicide, PAS) has become the center of a large debate, particularly when these practices have involved people with psychiatric illness, including resistant depression, schizophrenia, personality, or other severe psychiatric disorders. We performed a review utilizing several databases, and by including the most relevant studies in full journal articles investigating the problem of MAiD in patients with psychiatric disorders but not in physical terminal conditions (non-terminal, MAiD-NT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Literature has shown that a small percentage of people with psychiatric disorders died by MAiD-NT in comparison with patients with somatic diseases in terminal clinical conditions (e.g., cancer, AIDS). However, the problem in the field is complex and not solved yet as confirmed by the fact that only a few countries (e.g., the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg) have legalized MAiD-NT for patients with psychiatric disorders, while most have maintained the practices accessible only to people with somatic disease in a terminal phase. Also, how to make objective the criterion of irremediability of a mental disorder; how to balance suicide prevention with assisted suicide; how to avoid the risk of progressively including in requests for MAiD-NT vulnerable segments of the population, such as minors, elderly, or people with dementia, in a productive-oriented society, are some of the critical points to be discussed. The application of MAiD-NT in people with psychiatric disorders should be further explored to prevent end-of-life rights from contradicting the principles of recovery-oriented care.

The influence of cognitive distortions on decision-making capacity for physician aid in dying

As international laws on physician aid in dying (PAD) evolve, the question of permitting PAD in non-terminal illness, and in sole psychiatric illness, is under intense debate. In jurisdictions where PAD is permissible, certain safeguards and eligibility requirements must be met for all patients making a PAD request, and one of these requirements is that the patient have sound decision-making capacity with respect to the request. Legal criteria already exist for the determination of capacity, and they are quite similar between different jurisdictions. In current debates about the question of psychiatric PAD, one concern that has been raised is that cognitive distortions in mental disorders may affect a patient's decision-making capacity. At the same time, it has been established that all persons, with or without a mental disorder, experience cognitive distortions. If cognitive distortions are ubiquitous, it is likely that the severity and frequency of cognitive distortions is dimensional rather than categorical, between samples with and without mental illness. Furthermore, currently, there is no requirement for a formalized evaluation of cognitive distortions as part of capacity assessment for any type of medical decision, including PAD decisions. The current paper examines the literature related to cognitive distortions in mental disorders and in healthy populations. It proposes that the existence of cognitive distortions, alone, cannot be used as an argument for a blanket exclusion of psychiatric PAD. It therefore concludes that further research and ethical analysis should be undertaken to examine the impact of cognitive distortions on decision-making for consequential medical decisions, including PAD, in patients with and without mental disorders.