Skip to main content
×
×
Home

When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study

  • Monica Verhofstadt (a1), Lieve Thienpont (a2) and Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters (a3)
Abstract
Background

The concept of ‘unbearable suffering’ is central to legislation governing whether euthanasia requests may be granted, but remains insufficiently understood, especially in relation to psychiatric patients.

Aims

To provide insights into the suffering experiences of psychiatric patients who have made a request for euthanasia.

Method

Testimonials from 26 psychiatric patients who requested euthanasia were analysed using QualiCoder software.

Results

Five domains of suffering were identified: medical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal and existential. Hopelessness was confirmed to be an important contributor. The lengthy process of applying for euthanasia was a cause of suffering and added to experienced hopelessness, whereas encountering physicians who took requests seriously could offer new perspectives on treatment.

Conclusions

The development of measurement instruments to assess the nature and extent of suffering as experienced by psychiatric patients could help both patients and physicians to better navigate the complicated and sensitive process of evaluating requests in a humane and competent way. Some correlates of suffering (such as low income) indicate the need for a broad medical, societal and political debate on how to reduce the burden of financial and socioeconomic difficulties and inequalities in order to reduce patients' desire for euthanasia. Euthanasia should never be seen (or used) as a means of resolving societal failures.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence.
Corresponding author
Monica Verhofstadt, LEIFpunt-Gent, Zwijnaardsesteenweg 41–43, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: monica@euthanasiaresearch.eu
Footnotes
Hide All
*

These authors contributed equally to the work.

For commentaries on this paper see pp. 246–247 and 248–249.

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Smets, T, Bilsen, J, Cohen, J, Rurup, ML, De Keyser, E, Deliens, L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy 2009; 90; 181–7.
2 steck, N, Egger, M, Maessen, M, Reisch, T, Zwahlen, M. Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review. Med Care 2013; 51: 938–44.
3 Dyer, O, White, C, García Rada, A. Assisted dying: law and practice around the world. BMJ 2015; 351: h4481.
4 Quill, TE, Back, AL, Block, SD. Responding to patients requesting physician-assisted death: physician involvement at the very end of life. JAMA 2016; 315: 245–6.
5 Naudts, K, Ducatelle, C, Kovacs, J, Laurens, K, Van den Eynde, F, Van Heeringen, C. Euthanasia: the role of the psychiatrist. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 405–9.
6 Ministry of Justice. Law on euthanasia of May 28, 2002 [in Dutch and French]. Belgian Official Gazette, 2002; 22 June (http://www.npzl.be/files/107a_B3_Wet.euthanasie.pdf).
7 Nys, H. Euthanasia in the Low Countries. A comparative analysis of the law regarding euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands. Ethical Perspect 2002; 9: 7385.
8 Cohen-Almagor, R. Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 436–9.
9 Ministry of Justice. Law on euthanasia and assisted-suicide of March 16, 2009 [in French]. Official Gazette of Luxembourg, 2009 (http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2009/0046/a046.pdf).
10 Dees, M, Vernooij-Dassen, M, Dekkers, W, van Weel, C. Unbearable suffering of patients with a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: an integrative review. Psychooncology 2010; 19: 339–52.
11 Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia.
12 Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia 2012.
13 Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia. Seventh report to the Parliament (2014–2015) [in Dutch]. Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, 2016 (http://overlegorganen.gezondheid.belgie.be/sites/default/files/documents/7_euthanasie-verslag_2014-2015-nl.pdf).
14 Thienpont, L, Verhofstadt, M, Van Loon, T, Distelmans, W, Audenaert, K, De Deyn, PP. Euthanasia requests, procedures and outcomes for 100 Belgian patients suffering from psychiatric disorders: a retrospective, descriptive study. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e007454.
15 Smets, T, Bilsen, J, Cohen, J, Rurup, ML, Deliens, L. Legal euthanasia in Belgium: characteristics of all reported euthanasia cases. Med Care 2010; 48: 187–92.
16 Delbeke, E. Legal Aspects of Care at the End of Life [in Dutch]. Intersentia, 2012.
17 Pasman, HRW, Rurup, ML, Willems, DL, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD (2009). Concept of unbearable suffering in context of ungranted requests for euthanasia: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians. BMJ 2009; 339: b4362.
18 Mak, YYW, Elwyn, G. Voices of the terminally ill: uncovering the meaning of desire for euthanasia. Palliat Med 2005; 19: 343–50.
19 Ruijs, CD, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD, van der Wal, G, Kerkhof, AJ Unbearability of suffering at the end of life: the development of a new measuring device, the SOS-V. BMC Palliat Care 2009; 8: 16.
20 Dees, MK, Vernooij-Dassen, MJ, Dekkers, WJ, Vissers, KC, van Weel, C. ‘Unbearable suffering’: a qualitative study on the perspectives of patients who request assistance in dying. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 727–34.
21 Peters, GJY, Abraham, C, Crutzen, R. Full disclosure: doing behavioural science necessitates sharing. Eur Health Psychol 2012; 14: 7784.
22 Grassi, L, Travado, L, Gil, F, sabato, S, Rossi, E, Tomamichel, M et al. Hopelessness and related variables among cancer patients in the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study (SEPOS). Psychosomatics 2010; 51: 201–7.
23 Tholen, AJ, Berghmans, RLP, Huisman, J, Scherders, MJ. Guideline Dealing with the Request for Assisted Suicide by Patients with a Psychiatric Disorder [in Dutch]. Dutch Psychiatric Association, 2009 (http://steungroeppsychiaters.nl/wp-content/uploads/Richtlijn-hulp-bij-zelfdoding_NVvP-2009.pdf).
24 Hawton, K, Houston, K, Haw, C, Townsend, E, Harriss, L. Comorbidity of axis I and axis II disorders in patients who attempted suicide. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1494–500.
25 Dees, MK, Vernooij-Dassen, MJ, Dekkers, WJ, Elwyn, G, Vissers, KC, van Weel, C. Perspectives of decision-making in requests for euthanasia: a qualitative research among patients, relatives and treating physicians in the Netherlands. Palliat Med 2013; 27: 2737.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
  • ISSN: 0007-1250
  • EISSN: 1472-1465
  • URL: /core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 47
Total number of PDF views: 245 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 873 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 15th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study

  • Monica Verhofstadt (a1), Lieve Thienpont (a2) and Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters (a3)
Submit a response

eLetters

Towards a definition of unbearable suffering and the incongruence of psychiatric euthanasia

Paul Kioko, Doctoral Student, Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
Pablo Requena, Professor of Moral Theology and Bioethics, Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
24 January 2018

In the article by Verhofstadt et al, the authors rightly observe that the concept of ‘unbearable suffering’ in relation to euthanasia remains poorly defined in the medical literature (1). We wish to make three observations which may contribute towards a better understanding of ‘unbearable suffering’ and highlight the incongruency of considering euthanasia as psychotherapeutic.

First, suffering in one form or another is part and parcel of being human. It is the time-tested signal that something is going wrong. It is also the moment to test the limits of character and affective maturity. This is not to say that suffering is always welcome. Indeed, a sign of human progress is the alleviation of many forms of suffering and medicine certainly plays a key role in this. Nevertheless, medicine alone cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of relieving all forms of human suffering. Verhofstadt and colleagues identify five categories of unbearable suffering in psychiatric patients: medically related, intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and existential. It is a fact that modern psychiatry is able to treat many psychiatric disorders, but asking psychiatrists to treat all forms of suffering including existential doubts may be actually leading the profession away from medicine.

Second, suffering is a normal human affective-emotional reaction to a perceived or real threat to the integrity of personhood following the classic definition by Cassell (2) and adapted by Dees et al in their proposal for defining ‘unbearable suffering’ (3). We would argue that suffering is bearable when a person is able to rationalise the perceived threat to integrity in view of a higher end or good. Indeed many of the greatest figures in history are admired precisely for having suffered for a cause. On the other hand, suffering is unbearable when a person is unable to rationalise the suffering. In other words it is a suffering that has no meaning for that person. It is unreasonable. The humanization of suffering is about restoring meaning to suffering, not annihilating the person (4).

Third, adding euthanasia to the therapeutic repertoire of psychiatry is in truth an alteration of psychiatry and not an advancement of science. Twenty five centuries ago Hippocrates finally managed to separate science from hocus pocus, the doctor from the sorcerer, curing from killing (5). Readmitting this vanquished foe to the fold is to change the very character and goals of medicine. Psychiatrists should shun euthanasia as a ‘treatment’ for suffering-in-want-of-a-reason and instead concentrate on what they do best – treating psychiatric disorders and helping patients find meaning for their suffering.

(1) Verhofstadt M, Thienpont L, Peters GJ. When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211: 238-45.

(2) Cassell EJ. The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 639-45.

(3) Dees M, Vernooij-Dassen M, Dekkers W, van Weel C. Unbearable suffering of patients with a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: an integrative review. Psychooncology 2010; 19: 339–52.

(4) Frankl VE. The feeling of meaninglessness: a challenge to psychotherapy. Am J Psychoanal 1972; 32: 85-9.

(5) Levine M. Psychiatry & Ethics. Braziller, 1972.
... More

Conflict of interest: None declared

Write a reply
Show replies

to Towards a definition of unbearable suffering and the incongruence of psychiatric euthanasia


Unbearable suffering or Unbearable Deceit?

Eugene G Breen, Adult Psychiatrist, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin.
10 October 2017

This series of 26 vignettes with copious surrounding soft speak about how awfully important it is to get it right about euthanizing psychiatric patients, looks like poacher becoming game keeper, "We must really care for our unbearably suffering patients and end their suffering with this new treatment called euthanasia" type of attitude. What is touted is a tick box - lets call it "Unbearable Suffering" - that once ticked clears the way for comfortable acceptable and squeaky clean legal euthanasia of vulnerable people. This is pseudo science all the way with tacit implication that everyone caring and reasonable agrees that euthanasia is a legitimate respectable pathway for "care at the end of life." It isn't, and most health professionals strive to palliate suffering and not shoot the patient.

It is ironic that a clinic that supposedly carries out "end of life care" has such a high mortality figure. Nine of the 26 presenting with letters dies by euthanasia. In the rest of the world (except the countries mentioned who euthanize) criminal proceedings would be instigated against such "clinics." To embed euthanasia or physician assisted suicide into the medical world as a standard "regulated" and supervised procedure is to undermine the doctor patient relationship. Doctors and patients would now think of cosmetic death as a definite option and societal pressure would torment dependent elderly or disabled into requesting it "because the doctor says its the right thing to do (the doctor is not offering hope or any other form of treatment) and "it would take the burden of my relatives." These are very vulnerable and easily manipulated people that need our protection and advocacy.

The American College of Physicians have again endorsed their respect for life and opposition to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (Oct 2017). They mention the reality of the "slippery slope" (which is occurring in Holland - report of a Dutch geriatrician on criminal charges for unlawful death of demented 74 year old woman BMJ: 2017; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4639). They also cite their opposition to engagement in suicide. Lastly they express the real fear of involuntary euthanasia becoming a reality.

"Unbearable suffering" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is impossible to justify killing innocent life.
... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

Where is the argument for the conceptual Slippery Slope ?

John M Clifford, Consultant Psychiatrist, BCUHB North Wales
07 October 2017

I do concur with the position laid down by Brendan D. Kelly (1) in response to the paper by Verhofstadt et al (2) and his conclusion that 'we should not kill our patients'. However, one argument he has surprisingly not used is that of a 'slippery slope' (3). In particular Beauchamp and Childress specify two versions of this argument. The psychological-sociological one is well known and is often cited as arguments against euthanasia. However, the conceptual slippery slope is by far the more dangerous and exemplified here so succinctly. Here in Verhofstadt et al we have 'unbearable suffering' as a concept leading almost effortlessly and uncritically to the euthanasia of psychiatric patients who have no terminal disease. What is so shocking is that this is no sterile philosophical debate but is in action in a European country and has led to patient deaths. This subjugation demonstrates the biggest risk in the euthanasia debate and should be actively resisted.

(1) Kelly, B. Invited commentary on... 211,248-249

(2) Vorhofstadt, M. et al 'When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia' 211, 238-245

(3) Beauchamp, T. et all 'Principles of Biomedical ethics Fourth Edition' Oxford.
... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *