No abstract

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.'Research' is defined as any form of disciplined enquiry that aims to contribute to a body of knowledge or theory.'Research ethics' refers to the moral principles guiding research from its inception through to completion and publication of results.'Research Ethics Committee (REC)' refers to a multidisciplinary, independent body responsible for reviewing research proposals involving human participants to ensure that their dignity, rights and welfare are protected. The independence and competence of a REC are based upon its membership, its rules regarding conflicts of interest and on regular monitoring of and accountability for its decisions.'Protocol' refers to a filed document which specifies for a research project the procedures for recruiting participants and gathering and managing data, with which all project staff agree to comply.'Human participant' is defined as including living human beings, human beings who have recently died (cadavers, human remains and body parts), embryos and foetuses, human tissue and bodily fluids and human data and records (such as but not restricted to medical, genetic, financial, personnel, criminal or administrative records and test results including scholastic achievements). In respect of data and records, current data protection legislation should be routinely consulted.

Abstract. Voluntary euthanasia has been legalized in several countries and associated with this development there has been much discussion concerning the relationship between the ethical principle of autonomy and the respect for human life. Psychological science should make a significant contribution to understanding how polarizing positions may be taken in such debates. However, little has been written concerning the implications of this research for the euthanasia debate and about the contributions of psychology. In the same way, very little is written about the psychologist’s role in countries where voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is legalized. We take as a starting assumption that there are no solutions that will meet everyone’s wishes or needs, but that an understanding of psychological ideas, can assist in developing strategies that may help people with opposing views come to some agreement. In our view, it is fundamental to a fruitful analysis, to leave aside a polarized approach and to understand that an eventual answer to the question of how we approach voluntary euthanasia will only be achieved after the hard process of carefully considering the consequences of having either legalized voluntary euthanasia or its prohibition, in the context of a psychological understanding.

The opportunity for patients to request support to die is legalised in several countries and is associated with the development of a social and political debate that has taken place in recent years. We believe that psychologists can contribute to this debate. Here, we conducted a literature and legislation review with the aim of understanding arguments regarding the roles of the psychologist in hastening death. A systematic review of the peer‐review literature in this field was carried out. The legislation of each country with hasten death practices was analysed to understand if psychologists are included in the protocols of hasten death practices. Despite a lack of literature, we found competence assessment, communication, psychological counselling, research and training and public policy to be the possible roles of psychologists in requests to hasten death. Based on the review, an agenda for future research is developed. We highlight the importance of psychology, raising its profile in the study of the various forms of death hastening requests.

No abstract