Lawful physician-hastened death

Russell, James A.; Epstein, Leon G.; Bonnie, Richard J.; Conwit, Robin; Graf, Wilhelm; Kirschen, Matthew; Kurek, Julie A.; Larriviere, Dan; Pascuzzi, Robert M.; Rizzo, Matthew; Sattin, Justin A.; Simmons, Zachary; Taylor, Lynne; Tsou, Amy Y.; Williams, Michael A.

doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000005012

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No society had a statement overtly supporting euthanasia. Three societies have had their position statements published in peer-reviewed journals (American Academy of Neurology [AAN] [ 16 ], American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ 17 ], and American College of Physicians [ACP] [ 19 ]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studied neutrality statements provide supportive and cautionary arguments concerning PAS. The statements of AAHPM, AAN, and the American Pharmacists Association acknowledge the complexities of the physician–patient relationship [ 13 , 16 , 22 ], and American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges the social complexities of the medical environment [ 24 ]. Each of these statements emphasizes patient autonomy in decision-making associated with the dying process.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An analysis of the position statements of secular US medical and surgical professional societies on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia have not been published recently. Available statements were evaluated for position, content, and sentiment. Methods In order to create a comprehensive list of secular medical and surgical societies, the results of a systematic search using Google were cross-referenced with a list of societies that have a seat on the American Medical Association House of Delegates. Societies with position statements were identified. These statements were divided into 5 categories: opposed to PAS and/or euthanasia, studied neutrality, supportive, acknowledgement without statement, and no statement. Linguistic analysis was performed using RapidMinder in order to determine word frequency and sentiment respective to individual statements. To ensure accuracy, only statements with word counts > 100 were analyzed. A 2-tailed independent t test was used to test for variance among sentiment scores of opposing and studied neutrality statements. Results Of 150 societies, only 12 (8%) have position statements on PAS and euthanasia: 11 for PAS (5 opposing and 4 studied neutrality) and 9 for euthanasia (6 opposing and 2 studied neutrality). Although the most popular words used in opposing and studied neutrality statements are similar, notable exceptions exist (suicide, medicine, and treatment appear frequently in opposing statements, but not in studied neutrality statements, whereas psychologists, law, and individuals appear frequently in studied neutrality statements, but not in opposing statements). Sentiment scores for opposing and studied neutrality statements do not differ (mean, 0.094 vs. 0.104; P = 0.90). Conclusions Few US medical and surgical societies have position statements on PAS and euthanasia. Among them, opposing and studied neutrality statements share similar linguistic sentiment. Opposing and studied neutrality statements have clear differences, but share recommendations. Both opposing and studied neutrality statements cite potential risks of PAS legalization and suggest that good palliative care might diminish a patient’s desire for PAS.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Statement continues, "the committee considers LPHD to be morally distinctive from other medical interventions that do or may hasten death such as the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, palliative sedation, and euthanasia." 1 So, what is LPHD? Nowhere in the ELH Committee position statement is LPHD explicitly defined.…”

Section: Lphd: Particularly Dangerous For Incompetent Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(emphasis added). Thus, as recognized in the ELH Committee position statement, 1 LPHD is radically different from either withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or palliative sedation, both of which are ethically acceptable. 27 Palliative sedation is intended to relieve suffering, not end life, using a drug protocol that differs from LPHD.…”

Section: Lphd: Particularly Dangerous For Incompetent Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AAN has decided to retire its 1998 position on "Assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the neurologist" and to leave the decision of whether to practice or not to practice LPHD [lawful physician hastened death] to the conscientious judgment of its members acting on behalf of their patients. 1 This statement appears to simply withdraw the AAN from taking a stance on the crucial issue of whether a physician may prescribe medication with the direct goal of causing death.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

End of life

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In legal physician-hastened death, a physician prescribes medication with the primary intent of causing the death of a willing terminally ill patient. This practice differs radically from palliative sedation, intended to relieve a patient's suffering rather than cause a patient's death. In this position paper, we argue that the practice of physician-hastened death is contrary to the interests of patients, their families, and the sound ethical practice of medicine. Therefore, the American Academy of Neurology should advise its members against this practice, as it had done until 2018. The new position of the AAN on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is not really neutral On first read, the AAN's decision to leave "the decision of whether to practice or not to practice LPHD to the conscientious judgment of its members" seems most reasonable. However, atrocities have been committed throughout history by people, including physicians, who made a misguided conscientious judgment. 2,3 As Immanuel Kant has argued, 4 a conscientious judgment has to be guided by sound ethical principles. Furthermore, the wording of the ELH statement implies that the previous AAN position was coercive, as laws are. On the contrary, when until very recently, the AAN advised its members against using medical means to cause death, it enunciated an ethical principle, not a legal one. Under its previous guidance, the AAN made plain that although the organization would not discipline members practicing physicianassisted suicide, it still considered the practice unequivocally unethical. †Deceased.

show abstract

Advanced Directives for Hastened‐Death?

Russell¹

2022

Movement Disorders

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lawful physician-hastened death

Cited by 22 publications

References 7 publications

US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review

US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review

End of life

Advanced Directives for Hastened‐Death?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About