Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted euthanasia: evidence from abroad and implications for UK neurologists
  1. Uma Nath1,
  2. Claud Regnard2,
  3. Mark Lee3,
  4. Kiran Alexander Lloyd4,
  5. Louise Wiblin5
  1. 1Neurology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, UK
  2. 2Palliative Medicine, St Oswald's Hospice, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  3. 3Palliative Medicine, St Benedict's Hospice, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Trust, Sunderland, UK
  4. 4Department of Philosophy, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
  5. 5Neurology, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Uma Nath, Neurology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland SR47TP, UK; uma.nath{at}chsft.nhs.uk

Abstract

In this article, we consider the arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (AS) and physician-assisted euthanasia (Eu). We assess the evidence around law and practice in three jurisdictions where one or both are legal, with emphasis on data from Oregon. We compare the eligibility criteria in these different regions and review the range of approved disorders. Cancer is the most common cause for which requests are granted, with neurodegenerative diseases, mostly motor neurone disease, ranking second. We review the issues that may drive requests for a physician-assisted death, such as concerns around loss of autonomy and the possible role of depression. We also review the effectiveness and tolerability of some of the life-ending medications used. We highlight significant variation in regulatory oversight across the different models. A large amount of data are missing or unavailable. We explore physician-AS and physician-assisted Eu within the wider context of end-of-life practice.

  • dementia
  • evidence-based neurology
  • health policy & practice
  • neuroepidemiology
  • depression

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors UN drafted the manuscript and subsequent revisions and conceived and designed the review. CR sourced information and provided the figures. KAL provided advice relating to ethics and logical argumentation. All authors critically appraised and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests CR and ML are the members of the Association of Palliative Medicine. CR manages the KADOH website (www.kadoh.uk).

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally reviewed by Martin Turner, Oxford, UK.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Other content recommended for you