Background The medical-ethical dilemmas related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) in psychiatric patients are highly relevant in an international context. EAS in psychiatric patients appears to become more frequent in the Netherlands. However, little is known about the experiences of psychiatrists with this practice. This study aims to estimate the incidence of EAS (requests) in psychiatric practice in The Netherlands and to describe the characteristics of psychiatric patients requesting EAS, the decision-making process and outcomes of these requests. Methods In the context of the third evaluation of the Dutch Euthanasia Act, a cross-sectional study was performed between May and September 2016. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 500 Dutch psychiatrists. Of the 425 eligible psychiatrists 49% responded. Frequencies of EAS and EAS requests were estimated. Detailed information was asked about the most recent case in which psychiatrists granted and/or refused an EAS request, if any. Results The total number of psychiatric patients explicitly requesting for EAS was estimated to be between 1100 and 1150 for all psychiatrists in a one year period from 2015 to 2016. An estimated 60 to 70 patients received EAS in this period. Nine psychiatrists described a case in which they granted an EAS request from a psychiatric patient. Five of these nine patients had a mood disorder. Three patients had somatic comorbidity. Main reasons to request EAS were ‘depressive feelings’ and ‘suffering without prospect of improvement’. Sixty-six psychiatrists described a case in which they refused an EAS request. 59% of these patients had a personality disorder and 19% had somatic comorbidity. Main reasons to request EAS were ‘depressive feelings’ and ‘desperate situations in several areas of life’. Most requests were refused because the due care criteria were not met. Conclusions Although the incidence of EAS in psychiatric patients increased over the past two decades, this practice remains relatively rare. This is probably due to the complexity of assessing the due care criteria in case of psychiatric suffering. Training and support may enable psychiatrists to address this sensitive issue in their work better. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-019-2053-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from a mental illness is allowed in the Netherlands under certain conditions but is a very controversial topic, mainly discussed by ethicists and physicians. The voice of the patient is rarely included in the debate, so we know little about what their views on the topic are. We aim to understand the views of patients with mental illness and wish to die with regard to the possibility of PAD in the Netherlands. The data for this qualitative study were collected through 21 in-depth interviews with Dutch patients who have a wish for PAD as a result of suffering from a mental illness. We identified four themes in relation to the meaning of PAD for the patients suffering from mental illness and wish to die. These themes are (1) Autonomy and self-determination, (2) ending the suffering, (3) recognition, and (4) a dignified end-of-life. The option of PAD for patients suffering from mental illnesses was considered of great importance to the patients who have a wish to die. We highlight the importance of ‘recognition’ for the situation of the patient, as this could lead to new perspective. We argue that psychiatrists need to reflect on providing this recognition in earlier phases of treatment, taking seriously and discussing a wish for PAD in treatment is beneficial to patients. It provides space for the patient to discuss their wishes and could cause them not wanting to die anymore.

Physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from mental illness is legally permitted in the Netherlands. Although patients’ relatives are not entrusted with a legal role, former research revealed that physicians take into account the patient’s social context and their well-being, in deciding whether or not to grant the request. However, these studies focussed on relatives’ experiences in the context of PAD concerning patients with somatic illness. To date, nothing is known on their experiences in the context of PAD concerning the mentally ill. We studied the experiences of relatives with regard to a PAD request by patients suffering from mental illness. The data for this study were collected through 12 interviews with relatives of patients who have or had a PAD request because of a mental illness. We show that relatives are ambivalent regarding the patient’s request for PAD and the following trajectory. Their ambivalence is characterised by their understanding of the wish to die and at the same time hoping that the patient would make another choice. Respondents’ experiences regarding the process of the PAD request varied, from positive (‘intimate’) to negative (‘extremely hard’). Some indicated that they wished to be more involved as they believe the road towards PAD should be a joint trajectory. To leave them out during such an important event is not only painful, but also harmful to the relative as it could potentially complicate their grieving process. Professional support during or after the PAD process was wanted by some, but not by all.