The engagement of psychiatrists in the assessment of euthanasia requests from psychiatric patients in Belgium: a survey study

Table 2 Engagement of psychiatrists in euthanasia, throughout their career

Confronted with euthanasia throughout their career	Sample (N = 178) N/%
Ever confronted with such requests	143 (80.3)
- Ever confronted and never refused to be involved	130 (73.0)
- Ever confronted, but ever refused to be involved	13 (7.3)
Ever engaged in assessment for euthanasia in APC patients^a
No, never	48 (27.5)
Yes, as	130 (72.5)^b
- referring physician	78 (43.8)
- attending physician	54 (30.3)
with patients from my practice	41 (23.0)
for patients referred to me by a colleague	27 (15.2)
- preliminary advising physician	35 (19.7)
- formally advising physician	39 (21.9)
- participant to the administration of the lethal drugs (performing physician)	8 (4.5)
with patients from my practice	8 (4.5)
for patients referred to me by a colleague	0 (0.0)
- in another role^c	12 (6.8)

^a56 psychiatrists (43.4%) indicated that they have been actively engaged in more than one role, other than the role of referring physician. Seventy-one psychiatrists (55% of all 129 psychiatrists ever engaged in such euthanasia procedures) indicated that they have not been engaged in more than one role, throughout their career (46 psychiatrists as referring physician, 13 as attending physician, 7 as formally advising and 5 as preliminary advising physician)
^b One of the 130 cases was not yet involved
^c12 psychiatrists indicated being involved in another role, most of them were passively involved as the treating physician of the patient’s psychopathology (e.g. discussing the euthanasia request during or after the euthanasia procedure, as well as during crisis confinement), as a member of the psychiatric care facility’s ethics committee or as trainee in psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X