Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵ iThe authors make some helpful observations about what should count as a ‘realistic appreciation’.
↵ iiExtra caution in the case of psychiatric patients has been required by the Dutch High Court in the famous Chabot case, 21 Jun 1994.
↵ iiiSee, for example, ref. 3. The right to decide by what means and at what point his life will end has been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights in Haas v Switzerland, 20 Jan 2011.
↵ ivIn particular, case 2011-134404, and five cases in 2013 in which a psychiatrist in his capacity of independent consultant had voiced such doubts, but the reporting doctor had simply approached another consultant, not a psychiatrist.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- End of life
- Commentary
- The concise argument
- Current controversy
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Drawing the line on physician-assisted death
- Choosing death in depression: a commentary on ‘Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying’
- Treatment-resistant depression and physician-assisted death
- Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying
- Why the irremediability requirement is not sufficient to deny psychiatric euthanasia for patients with treatment-resistant depression
- Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying: response to comments
- Physician-assisted death does not violate professional integrity
- Commentary on ‘Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying’
- Competence for physician-assisted death of patients with mental disorders: theoretical and practical considerations
- Safeguarding choice at the end of life