Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
The case of Mrs A is a provocative example of euthanasia by advance directive to avoid increasingly severe dementia. It is also a ‘perfect storm’ of a disturbing case, revealing both the challenges that can arise with advance euthanasia directives (AEDs) generally and particular issues in the Dutch procedures. Kim, Miller and Dresser have done a distinct service to bioethics in detailing the case, in explaining the basis of the regional euthanasia review committee (RTE) reprimand of the administering geriatrician and in highlighting some significant deficiencies in Dutch procedures.1
Many readers, after encountering the case, may find themselves sceptical that AEDs can be an ethically viable vehicle for avoiding living into severe dementia. I will argue that caution and care, not resistance to AEDs for dementia, is in order. Real dilemmas of implementation are inherent in advance directives, to be sure, dilemmas that can be aggravated by a patient’s dementia. Yet much can be done in writing an AED to make its implementation in dementia less problematic, and the Dutch emphasis on intolerable suffering as a necessary condition for euthanasia is not the appropriate legal framework.
A case made for trouble
The difficulties in the case begin with the directive itself. Any advance directive, whether for refusing lifesaving treatment or for physician-assisted death, needs to be clear about what is and is not to happen and when. At first Mrs A’s directive seems to provide a trigger point: ‘I want to make use of the legal right to … euthanasia when I am still at all mentally competent and am no longer able to live at home with my husband. I absolutely do not want to be placed in an institution for elderly dementia patients’. In a revision added a year before her death, the time had become ‘whenever I think the time …
Footnotes
↵ i Dworkin’s views are explained in detail, along with Dresser’s view, the powerful rejoinder of Nancy Rhoden and an expanded version of the rest of this paragraph in Menzel and Steinbock.3
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- First prosecution of a Dutch doctor since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: what does the verdict mean?
- Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns
- Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach
- The role of advance euthanasia directives as an aid to communication and shared decision-making in dementia
- Response to: ‘Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns’ by Jongsma et al
- Is this person with dementia (currently) competent to request euthanasia? A complicated and underexplored question
- Ethics of care challenge to advance directives for dementia patients
- Do guidelines on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Dutch hospitals and nursing homes reflect the law? A content analysis