Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying

Schüklenk, Udo; Vathorst, Suzanne van de

doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102458

Cited by 66 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The option is limited to patients who experience suffering that is considered to be ‘unbearable’, and assisted death must be judged to be the only available means for addressing it (Schuklenk and van de Vathorst, p579) 1. Still, public support for extending PAD to patients with treatment-resistant depression is not strong (Schuklenk and van de Vathorst, p577) 1…”

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, public support for extending PAD to patients with treatment-resistant depression is not strong (Schuklenk and van de Vathorst, p577) 1 xii This may reflect a failure on the part of the public to understand fully the severity of the suffering that is associated with major forms of depression (Schuklenk and van de Vathorst, p578) 1. Yet even granting the severity of the suffering in question, the case for extending PAD to this group of patients is far from straightforward.…”

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet even granting the severity of the suffering in question, the case for extending PAD to this group of patients is far from straightforward. Some writers have claimed that it is unfair discrimination to allow PAD for terminally ill patients, but not for patients with severe depression, if both groups of patients experience untreatable and unbearable suffering (Schuklenk and van de Vathorst, p5771; Steinbock, p322). This complaint has force, however, only if there are no relevant differences between these two groups of patients.…”

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing the line on physician assistance in physician-assisted death (PAD) continues to be a contentious issue in many legal jurisdictions across the USA, Canada and Europe. PAD is a medical practice that occurs when physicians either prescribe or administer lethal medication to their patients. As more legal jurisdictions establish PAD for at least some class of patients, the question of the proper scope of this practice has become pressing. This paper presents an argument for restricting PAD to the terminally ill that can be accepted by defenders as well as critics of PAD for the terminally ill. The argument appeals to fairness-based paternalism and the social meaning of medical practice. These two considerations interact in various ways, as the paper explains. The right way to think about the social meaning of medical practice bears on fair paternalism as it relates to PAD and vice versa. The paper contends that these considerations have substantial force when directed against proposals to extend PAD to non-terminally ill patients, but considerably less force when directed against PAD for the terminally ill. The paper pays special attention to the case of non-terminally ill patients who suffer from treatment-resistant depression, as these patients present a potentially strong case for extending PAD beyond the terminally ill.

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distinguishing Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, especially if physician-assisted dying is allowed for patients whose conditions are incurable in the sense of (A), it would appear to be rather cruel to deny physician-assisted dying from unbearably suffering patients who autonomously want to die just because, or if, there is some possibility that sometime in the future a cure for their conditions is found (see also, eg, refs. 13 14). ii Accordingly, this possible criticism seems implausible.…”

Section: Possible Objectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician-assisted dying and two senses of an incurable condition

Varelius

2016

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly accepted that voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be allowed, if at all, only in the cases of patients whose conditions are incurable. Yet, there are different understandings of when a patient's condition is incurable. In this article, I consider two understandings of the notion of an incurable condition that can be found in the recent debate on physician-assisted dying. According to one of them, a condition is incurable when it is known that there is no cure for it. According to the other, a condition is incurable when no cure is known to exist for it. I propose two criteria for assessing the conceptions and maintain that, in light of the criteria, the latter is more plausible than the former.

show abstract

“…In response to Schuklenk's and Vathorst's proposal that individuals with treatment-resistant depression should have access to assisted dying,1 Christopher Cowley has presented a contrary argument based on comparison with the situation faced by patients with motor neurone disease (MND) 2. In Cowley's view, MND is a “non-terminal but untreatable debilitating disease(s)” which “… does not affect the brain”.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Get the facts right: time for evidence-based ethics

Mackintosh¹

2015

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment-resistant major depressive disorder and assisted dying

Cited by 66 publications

References 16 publications

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death

Physician-assisted dying and two senses of an incurable condition

Get the facts right: time for evidence-based ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About