Withdrawing an explicit request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: a retrospective study on the influence of mental health status and other patient characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health status may be closely related to an instability of intentions toward a premature death, but little is known about such instability following an explicit request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) and patient characteristics associated with a change of mind. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to 6596 general practitioners in The Netherlands (response rate 60%). Of these, 1681 provided descriptions of the most recent explicit request for EAS they had received in the preceding 18 months. RESULTS: Symptoms of depression and anxiety were related to a change of mind, but no relationship was found with the total score of the NOSGER Mood Dimension. Multinomial regression analysis revealed that patients who changed their mind had more mental health problems and less mental clarity than those who died by EAS. They also had fewer general health problems, had less unbearable and pointless suffering (according to the physician), were less concerned about loss of dignity and alternative treatment options were more frequently available. A further analysis revealed that mental health problems were more prevalent among patients whose requests were refused than among those who changed their mind. The physicians' evaluations of the reasons why a patient requested EAS were similar to a more objective measure of the patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mental health status must be carefully assessed, and possible instability of desire must be taken into account in the course of a request for EAS. These results require replication, and future studies should adopt a prospective method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".