4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Spanish regulation of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

      , , , ,
      Journal of Medical Ethics
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In March 2021, the Spanish Congress approved the law regulating euthanasia, that regulates both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). In this article, we analyse the Spanish law regulating euthanasia and PAS, comparing it with the rest of the European laws on euthanasia and PAS (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg). Identified strengths of the Spanish law, with respect to other norms, are that it is a law with many safeguards, which broadly recognises professionals’ right to conscientious objection and the specification that it makes on the prior comprehensive care of the patient, including the approach to care dependency. Regarding its shortcomings, the law does not differentiate well between euthanasia and PAS; it barely assigns a role to the healthcare team as a whole (similar to other regulations); it does not clarify the functions of the different professionals involved; it does not detail the specific composition and duration of theevaluation commission; it has not been accompanied by a prior or simultaneous regulation of palliative care; and, lastly, the period of time to implement the law is too short.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Unbearable suffering of patients with a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: an integrative review.

          In the legal performance of the euthanasia procedure, unbearable suffering, one of the requirements of due care, is difficult to assess. Evaluation of the current knowledge of unbearable suffering is needed in the ongoing debate about the conditions on which EAS can be approved. Using an integrative literature review, we evaluated publications with definitions of suffering in general or in end-of-life situations and with descriptions of suffering in the context of a request for EAS. From the 1482 citations identified, we included 55 publications: 20 articles about definitions of suffering and 35 empirical studies on suffering. We found no definition of unbearable suffering in the context of a request for EAS. Qualitative patient-centered studies revealed the most motivations, and the most motivations named by only one of the three parties involved. The studies of relatives were limited, mainly quantitative and retrospective. We found no studies that brought together the views of the patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. There is no generally accepted definition of 'unbearable suffering' in the context of a request for EAS. On the basis of the articles reviewed, we propose the following conceptual definition: 'Unbearable suffering in the context of a request for EAS is a profoundly personal experience of an actual or perceived impending threat to the integrity or life of the person, which has a significant duration and a central place in the person's mind'. Further patient-centered qualitative research into suffering is needed to clarify this definition. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Exploring Canadian Physicians' Experiences Providing Medical Assistance in Dying: A Qualitative Study

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Special Supplement: The Goals of Medicine: Setting New Priorities

              (1996)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Medical Ethics
                J Med Ethics
                BMJ
                0306-6800
                1473-4257
                December 19 2022
                January 2023
                January 2023
                July 30 2021
                : 49
                : 1
                : 49-55
                Article
                10.1136/medethics-2021-107523
                ae16a9c4-a291-49e5-8f2f-a22066f91a64
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article