Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is typically associated with serious physical illnesses that are prevalent in palliative care. However, individuals with mental illnesses may also experience such severity that life becomes intolerable. In February 2020, the previous German law prohibiting PAS was repealed. Patients with severe mental illnesses are increasingly likely to approach physicians with requests for PAS.

To explore the ethical and moral perspectives of medical students and physicians when making individual decisions regarding PAS.

An anonymised digital survey was conducted among medical students and physicians in Germany. Participants were presented with a case vignette of a chronically depressed patient requesting PAS. Participants decided on PAS provision and assessed theoretical arguments. We employed generalised ordinal regression and qualitative analysis for data interpretation.

A total of N = 1478 participants completed the survey. Of these, n = 470 (32%) stated that they would refuse the request, whereas n = 582 (39%) would probably refuse, n = 375 (25%) would probably agree and n = 57 (4%) would definitely agree. Patient-centred arguments such as the right to self-determination increased the likelihood of consent. Concerns that PAS for chronically depressed patients might erode trust in the medical profession resulted in a decreased willingness to provide PAS.

Participants displayed relatively low willingness to consider PAS in the case of a chronically depressed patient. This study highlights the substantial influence of theoretical medical-ethical arguments and the broader public discourse, underscoring the necessity of an ethical discussion on PAS for mental illnesses.

Euthanasia review committees (Regionale Toetsingscommissies Euthanasie, RTE) scrutinise all Dutch cases of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) to review whether six legal ‘due care’ criteria are met, including ‘unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement’. There are significant complexities and ethical dilemmas if EAS requests are made by people with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

To describe the characteristics and circumstances of people with intellectual disabilities and/or ASD who were granted their EAS request; investigate the main causes of suffering that led to the EAS request; and examine physicians’ response to the request.

The online RTE database of 927 EAS case reports (2012–2021) was searched for patients with intellectual disabilities and/or ASD (n = 39). Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on these case reports, using the framework method.

Factors directly associated with intellectual disability and/or ASD were the sole cause of suffering described in 21% of cases and a major contributing factor in a further 42% of cases. Reasons for the EAS request included social isolation and loneliness (77%), lack of resilience or coping strategies (56%), lack of flexibility (rigid thinking or difficulty adapting to change) (44%) and oversensitivity to stimuli (26%). In one-third of cases, physicians noted there was ‘no prospect of improvement’ as ASD and intellectual disability are not treatable.

Examination of societal support for suffering associated with lifelong disability, and debates around the acceptability of these factors as reasons for granting EAS, are of international importance.

This scoping review describes the existing literature which examines the breadth of healthcare providers’ (HCP's) experiences with the provision of medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

This study employed a scoping review methodology: (1) identify research articles, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) select studies based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, (4) chart the data, and (5) summarize the results.

In total, 30 papers were identified pertaining to HCP's experiences of providing MAiD. Fifty-three percent of the papers were from Europe (n = 16) and 40% of studies were from the USA or Canada (n = 12). The most common participant populations were physicians (n = 17) and nurses (n = 12). This scoping review found that HCPs experienced a variety of emotional responses to providing or providing support to MAiD. Some HCPs experienced positive emotions through helping patients at the end of the patient's life. Still other HCPs experienced very intense and negative emotions such as immense internal moral conflict. HCPs from various professions were involved in various aspects of MAiD provision such as responding to initial requests for MAiD, supporting patients and families, nursing support during MAiD, and the administration of medications to end of life.

This review consolidates many of the experiences of HCPs in relation to the provision of MAiD. Specifically, this review elucidates many of the emotions that HCPs experience through participation in MAiD. In addition to describing the emotional experiences, this review highlights some of the roles that HCPs participate in with relation to MAiD. Finally, this review accentuates the importance of team supports and self-care for all team members in the provision of MAiD regardless of their degree of involvement.

Studies in countries where assisted dying is legal show that bereaved people express concern over the potential for social disapproval and social stigma because of the manner of death. There are indications that voluntary assisted dying is judged as less acceptable if the deceased is younger. A vignette-based experiment was used to determine whether public stigma (i.e., negative emotional reactions and desired social distance) and expected grief symptoms are higher for conjugally bereaved people through voluntary assisted dying (vs. long-term illness), when the deceased is a young adult (vs. older adult).

A 2 × 2 randomized factorial design was conducted with 164 Australian adults (130 women, 34 men, Mage = 37.69 years). Each participant was randomized online to read one of four vignettes and completed measures of anger, fear, prosocial emotions, desire for social distance, and expectations of grief symptomatology.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Death at a young age (28 years) was significantly associated with stronger negative emotional reactions of fear ($\eta _p^2 = 0.04$, P = 0.048) and anger ($\eta _p^2 = 0.06$, P = 0.010). There were no differences in outcomes associated with the mode of death, nor was there an interaction between mode of death and age group.

Concerns that voluntary assisted dying elicits public stigma appear unfounded. The fact that participants reported significantly higher anger and fear in response to bereaved people experiencing loss at a younger (vs. older) age, irrespective of cause of death, indicates that young people who lose their spouse might benefit from additional support.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) based on a psychiatric disorder (psychiatric EAS) continue to pose ethical and policy challenges, even in countries where the practice has been allowed for years. We conducted a systematic review of reasons, a specific type of review for bioethical questions designed to inform rational policy-making. Our aims were twofold: (1) to systematically identify all published reasons for and against the practice (2) to identify current gaps in the debate and areas for future research.

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a search across seven electronic databases to include publications focusing on psychiatric EAS and providing ethical reasons. Reasons were grouped into domains by qualitative content analysis.

We included 42 articles, most of which were written after 2013. Articles in favor and against were evenly distributed. Articles in favor were mostly full-length pieces written by non-clinicians, with articles against mostly reactive, commentary-type pieces written by clinicians. Reasons were categorized into eight domains: (1) mental and physical illness and suffering (2) decisional capacity (3) irremediability (4) goals of medicine and psychiatry (5) consequences for mental health care (6) psychiatric EAS and suicide (7) self-determination and authenticity (8) psychiatric EAS and refusal of life-sustaining treatment. Parity- (or discrimination-) based reasons were dominant across domains, mostly argued for by non-clinicians, while policy reasons were mostly pointed to by clinicians.

The ethical debate about psychiatric EAS is relatively young, with prominent reasons of parity. More direct engagement is needed to address ethical and policy considerations.

The debate regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) raises key issues about the role of the doctor, and the professional, ethical, and clinical dimensions of the doctor-patient relationship. This review aimed to examine the published evidence regarding the response of doctors who have participated in E/PAS.

Original research papers were identified reporting either qualitative or qualitative data published in peer-reviewed literature between 1980 and March 2018, with a specific focus on the impact on, or response from, physicians to their participation in E/PAS. PRISMA and CASP guidelines were followed.

Nine relevant papers met selection criteria. Given the limited published data, a descriptive synthesis of quantitative and qualitative findings was performed. Quantitative surveys were limited in scope but identified a mixed set of responses. Where studies measured psychological impact, 30–50% of doctors described emotional burden or discomfort about participation, while findings also identified a comfort or satisfaction in believing the request of the patient was met. Significant, ongoing adverse personal impact was reported between 15% to 20%. A minority of doctors sought personal support, generally from family or friends, rather than colleagues. The themes identified from the qualitative studies were summarized as: 1) coping with a request; 2) understanding the patient; 3) the doctor's role and agency in the death of a patient; 4) the personal impact on the doctor; and 5) professional guidance and support.

Participation in E/PAS can have a significant emotional impact on participating clinicians. For some doctors, participation can contrast with perception of professional roles, responsibilities, and personal expectations. Despite the importance of this issue to medical practice, this is a largely neglected area of empirical research. The limited studies to date highlight the need to address the responses and impact on clinicians, and the support for clinicians as they navigate this challenging area.

Despite the availability of palliative care in many countries, legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) continues to be debated—particularly around ethical and legal issues—and the surrounding controversy shows no signs of abating. Responding to EAS requests is considered one of the most difficult healthcare responsibilities. In the present paper, we highlight some of the less frequently discussed practical implications for palliative care provision if EAS were to be legalized. Our aim was not to take an explicit anti-EAS stance or expand on findings from systematic reviews or philosophical and ethico-legal treatises, but rather to offer clinical perspectives and the potential pragmatic implications of legalized EAS for palliative care provision, patients and families, healthcare professionals, and the broader community.

We provide insights from our multidisciplinary clinical experience, coupled with those from various jurisdictions where EAS is, or has been, legalized.

We believe that these issues, many of which are encountered at the bedside, must be considered in detail so that the pragmatic implications of EAS can be comprehensively considered.

Increased resources and effort must be directed toward training, research, community engagement, and ensuring adequate resourcing for palliative care before further consideration is given to allocating resources for legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.