Publication avec DOI
Récupéré
Publication
crossref
Marie E. Nicolini, EJ Jardas, Carlos A. Zarate, Chris Gastmans, Scott Y. H. Kim
(2023).
Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard.
Psychological Medicine, 53(12), 5729-5747.
Cambridge University Press (CUP).
- Date de publication
-
28/10/2022
- Identifiant
-
10.1017/s0033291722002951
- Auteurs
-
Marie E. Nicolini,
EJ Jardas,
Carlos A. Zarate,
Chris Gastmans,
Scott Y. H. Kim
- Source
- Psychological Medicine
- Détails
- 53(12), 5729-5747
- Type de référence
- article
- Éditeur
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Source de métadonnées
- crossref
Résumé
Abstract 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.
Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée