While considering their ethical perspectives towards euthanasia, participants weigh up various values related to and intertwining with the following levels: (1) the patient, (2) the patient’s inner circle, (3) the field of medicine, and (4) society in general. Overall, the participants shared an amalgam of ethical values on each of these four levels, regardless of their stance on euthanasia. It was mainly the interpretation of some values, the emphasis they placed on the key components underpinning each value and the importance they attach to each of the four levels, that determined their stance towards euthanasia. It was uncommon for different ethical values to be explicitly mentioned, which could distinguish distinct stances for or against euthanasia.
As regards euthanasia in the context of psychiatry, the focus has primarily been on arguments for and against euthanasia [23]. However, our study takes a more comprehensive approach, exploring the issue from a wider range of perspectives. This approach allowed us to uncover more complex insights that may have been overlooked if we had only considered it as a black-and-white issue.
Both the systematic review of Nicolini et al. [23] and our study emphasized fundamental ethical domains such as autonomy, professional duties, and the broader implications of euthanasia on mental healthcare. While our findings aligned with those of the systematic review, our inquiry delved deeper into psychiatry-specific considerations, including the influence of sudden impulses and feelings of hopelessness. This underscores the importance of healthcare professionals carefully assessing the timing and contextual aspects of such decisions within psychiatric contexts, ensuring individuals receive timely and tailored support and interventions.
Furthermore, our study extended beyond the boundaries of medical discourse, addressing broader societal ramifications. Participants engaged in discussions about ‘social death,’ a phenomenon that describes the marginalization of individuals despite their physical existence. This discussion highlighted entrenched structural inequities and societal attitudes perpetuating social alienation, particularly affecting marginalized demographics, including individuals grappling with mental health issues. Advocating for societal inclusivity and supportive measures, our study strongly emphasized the need to foster a sense of unity and respect for everyone’s worth, regardless of their circumstances.
Interpretation of the main findings
We make explicit and discuss the values corresponding to the four classical principles of biomedical ethics, in particular beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy and justice [31]. We place these values in the context of different ethical approaches, such as religious, professional, emancipatory, social, societal, and virtue-oriented approaches (see the ethical interpretation framework in OSF).
In the discussion section, therefore, the following main values and virtues are addressed: (1) the values of beneficence and non-maleficence in a religious perspective, (2) those same values in the professional context, (3) the value of autonomy in the contemporary emancipation paradigm, (4) the virtue of compassion stemming from virtue ethics theory, (5) the value of quality care in a social approach, and (6) the value of justice in societal policy contexts.
Beneficence and non-maleficence: religious perspective
In the realm of euthanasia debates, the interplay of religious beliefs and the values of ‘beneficence’ (the act of doing good) and ‘non-maleficence’ (do no harm) has emerged as a pivotal point of contention, often giving rise to divergent perspectives on this complex ethical issue [32, 33]. Some religious traditions staunchly oppose medical end-of-life decisions, including euthanasia and abortion, viewing them as morally wrong and as disruptive to the natural order of life and death. The principle of ‘sanctity of life’ forms the bedrock of their belief system, underscoring the significance they attach to preserving life at all costs, as an embodiment of beneficence [34, 35]. Conversely, those who argue for the ethical consideration of euthanasia emphasize the concept of beneficence in alleviating suffering and granting autonomy to individuals in their final moments. However, intriguingly, our examination of the topic has revealed a nuanced relationship between religious beliefs and attitudes toward euthanasia. While some individuals in our sample expressed strong religious convictions (n = 5) and even considered themselves as practicing Catholics, they did not necessarily adopt a firm normative stance against euthanasia, signifying a complex balancing of beneficence and possible maleficence within their belief system. Conversely, certain participants who held steadfastly against euthanasia (n = 3) did not identify with any religious belief system, yet their position was firmly grounded in their perception of potential maleficence associated with medical intervention in life and death decisions. This observation aligns with recent studies highlighting the intricate and multifaceted nature of religiosity, where individuals within various religious frameworks may hold diverse beliefs and values surrounding beneficence and non-maleficence [36, 37]. Moreover, it underscores the powerful influence of societal culture on shaping personal perspectives on euthanasia, and how these views are entwined with the values of beneficence and non-maleficence [36, 37].
Beneficence and non-maleficence: professional values
Second, a profound division arises between proponents and opponents, particularly in the field of medicine, where interpretations of the Oath of Hippocrates play a central role. At its core, the Oath emphasizes the deontological values of beneficence and non-maleficence, as physicians are bound by a prohibition against administering a deadly drug to ‘anyone,’ even at their explicit request, highlighting the reverence for the sanctity of life inherent in medical practice. This interpretation has led some to perceive active euthanasia as contrary to these sacred principles of preserving life. The notion of beneficence, understood as promoting the well-being of patients, appears to be in tension with the act of intentionally ending a life. Critics argue that euthanasia undermines the fundamental duty of physicians to protect and preserve life. Additionally, the principle of ‘non-maleficence,’ which entails not harming the patient or their life, is seen by some as being in accordance with the ‘sanctity of life’. However, the Oath also recognizes the significance of alleviating relentless suffering, opening the door to a nuanced debate on how these timeless principles align with the modern concept of euthanasia. As the discourse unfolds, perspectives emerge, with some viewing euthanasia as a compassionate form of care, that respects the autonomy and dignity of patients facing terminal illness or unbearable suffering. Advocates argue that euthanasia can be an act of beneficence, providing relief from pain and allowing individuals to die with dignity and control over their own fate. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia steadfastly uphold the sanctity of life principle, viewing it as an ethical imperative that must not be compromised. They argue that intentionally ending a life, even in the context of relieving suffering, undermines the fundamental values of medical ethics and the intrinsic worth of every human life. For these individuals, euthanasia represents a profound ethical dilemma that conflicts with the near sanctity of medical ethics and the value of preserving life [38,39,40].
Autonomy: contemporary emancipation paradigm
The principle of autonomy emerges as one of the most prominent and contentious values in our contemporary emancipation paradigm. Autonomy, grounded in the belief in individual self-governance, is often cited as a foundational ethical principle in euthanasia legislation, emphasizing the significance of an individual’s capacity to make choices aligned with their own personal values and desires [31]. However, the discussion on autonomy extends beyond pure individualism, with considerations for relational autonomy, recognizing that individuals are not isolated entities but are shaped by their relationships, communities, and broader societal structures [41]. Within the context of euthanasia, the complexities of autonomy become evident as participants in the debate strived to find a delicate balance. On one hand, they stress the importance of respecting a patient’s individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions, ensuring that their choices are honoured and upheld. Simultaneously, they acknowledge the necessity of accounting for the patient’s social context and broader community when considering euthanasia as a compassionate option. Nevertheless, concerns are raised by some about the potential risks posed by euthanasia legislation, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly and the mentally ill. These concerns centre on the negative consequences that may arise when individual autonomy is exercised without consideration for others or for societal well-being, and the concept of “social death,” which refers to the marginalization and exclusion of individuals from social relationships and networks due to illness or disability [42, 43].
Amidst these complexities, the ethical value of autonomy stands as a paramount consideration. However, its application necessitates thoughtful consideration and balance with other values, including justice, equality, and societal responsibility. Recent reflections on “relational autonomy” have prompted critical evaluations of the idea of pure autonomy, emphasizing the need to delve deeper into the micro, meso, and macro levels that underpin autonomy and address potential conflicts between individual and relational autonomy [44]. Further, it highlights the imperative to take the broader societal context into account when grappling with the ethical challenges associated with euthanasia [45].
Compassion: virtue ethics
Our study confirms that while the value of autonomy holds importance, it is not the sole determinant in the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia [46]. In this complex discourse, numerous other ethical values and virtues come to the fore, including the significance of compassion towards suffering individuals and the imperative of alleviating their distress. Notably, compassion is not merely a singular principle, but rather a profound ground attitude or virtue that motivates individuals to empathize with the pain of others and take actions to provide relief.
As revealed in our research, participants who opposed euthanasia did not invoke religious frameworks; instead, they explored diverse philosophical approaches to comprehend suffering and compassion. Among these, non-Western philosophies emphasized embracing suffering as an intrinsic aspect of life, acknowledging the impermanence of all things, including suffering. Additionally, the existentialist perspective of Albert Camus underscored suffering’s innate connection to human existence, leading to deeper self-understanding and comprehension of the world.
These philosophical viewpoints find relevance in the realm of ethics as well. Virtue ethics, in particular, highlights the significance of cultivating virtues such as courage and resilience, while narrative ethics emphasizes storytelling as a means to gain profound insight and reflection on experiences of suffering [47, 48]. Such narratives foster empathy and create a shared sense of experience and community.
Our results show that, for some, suffering may hold positive value in various ways. The nature and intensity of suffering, alongside an individual’s values and virtues, beliefs, and coping capacity, significantly influence the ethics of euthanasia decision-making. An intricate approach that recognizes the multifaceted impacts of suffering becomes essential, acknowledging that various factors could potentially influence the experience of suffering as well as the interpretation of the consequences of the suffering experience. It’s possible that this approach doesn’t solely depend on the quantity of suffering or even its nature. Instead, it could be related to the delicate balance between one’s ability to endure suffering, the burden it places on them, and the (ir)remediableness of this burden, which can vary greatly among individuals as well as it might change over time. Such an approach aims to alleviate relentless suffering and, in certain cases, relieve unnecessary and enduring distress without consistently imposing interpretations upon it. Thus, acknowledging that, experiences of suffering are inherent to life and might act as drivers for personal development, fostering resilience, empathy, and a deeper apprehension of life’s essence, while it also might represent something irremediable, underscores the significance of a broader meaning of the concept of compassion as guiding principle in euthanasia discussions. These discussions further extend to the recognition of the dynamic trajectory inherent to the burden of suffering, as well as its potential for temporal evolution within the individual experiences of the afflicted. Such recognition not only fosters a more intricate understanding of the complex interplay between suffering and resilience but also highlights the acknowledgment that there may be moments when suffering becomes unendurable, surpassing the individual’s capacity to cope. This dimension introduces a layer of intricacy to the ethical considerations inherent in these discussions, thus necessitating a nuanced approach that contemplates the potentialities as well as the constraints of human endurance and the associated ethical ramifications.
Quality care: social approach
Examining euthanasia debates from a sociological perspective sheds light on the influence of societal inequalities in healthcare access and quality on the practice of euthanasia, and how it can shape personal, relational, and societal values, leading to the normalization or culturalization of euthanasia [49]. A noteworthy finding in this context is the contrasting perspectives on the evolving process of dying, transitioning from being perceived as in God’s hands to a more medical realm, where proponents of euthanasia view medicine as a catalyst for granting individuals greater control over the timing, manner, and circumstances of their own deaths. They envision the opportunity to be surrounded by loved ones and maintain consciousness while embracing the option of euthanasia, which they believe improves the quality of life at the end.
Proponents also emphasize additional benefits, such as enhanced transparency and regulation, ensuring ethical conduct through regulatory measures. They express concerns about a cultural environment where certain physicians adopt paternalistic attitudes and resist accepting death, prioritizing the extension of life as a moral imperative. In contrast, critical voices argue that death and dying have become increasingly medicalized, leading to their institutionalization. Some critics further contend that this medicalization has devalued the dying process and commodified life itself, leading patients, and families to increasingly rely on medical interventions at life’s end.
Moreover, as shared by some of the interviewees, the growing acceptance of medical assistance in dying may raise concerns. It’s conceivable that this evolving attitude could contribute to a perception of death undergoing a shift in seriousness, resulting in decisions about one’s life conclusion being made with less comprehensive thought and insufficient reflection. Consequently, this scenario could potentially lead individuals who are more susceptible to experiencing feelings of life’s insignificance, weariness, or sense of being ‘through with life’, to lean towards considering euthanasia. However, this inclination might also be driven by a lack of sufficient access to the necessary, long-term quality mental health care that would otherwise facilitate the pursuit of a life imbued with adequate significance, comfort, and dignity, achievable through appropriate (mental) healthcare.
Earlier research indicates that Belgium’s psychiatric care system has been grappling with underfunding and fragmentation, leading to individuals falling through the gaps in the mental health safety net [50]. One critical aspect is, e.g., the inadequate investment in long-term, intensive care, which is precisely the kind of support that individuals grappling with such existential questions may require.
Hence, in the context of euthanasia debates, the value of quality care emerges, encompassing the principle of beneficence, which emphasizes the obligation to provide good care and enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Ethical considerations go beyond the individual’s right to autonomy, extending to societal factors that influence healthcare practices and attitudes towards euthanasia. Addressing the impact of healthcare disparities and the medicalization of dying becomes imperative to ensure ethical and compassionate decision-making that upholds the true value of quality care and respect for human dignity.
Justice: societal policy contexts
In the context of euthanasia in somatic versus psychiatric medicine, ethical considerations regarding euthanasia often revolve around the fundamental value of justice [23, 51, 52]. Some respondents in our study emphasized the need for parity between somatic and psychiatric illnesses, recognizing that there should be no distinction between patients suffering from either. They argued that upholding the principle of justice demands equal treatment and recognition of the suffering experienced by individuals with psychiatric illnesses.
However, for others, achieving justice requires acknowledging and addressing the unique challenges faced by patients predominantly suffering from psychiatric illnesses. A comprehensive and integrated healthcare approach is proposed, where mental health is regarded as an integral part of overall health. This approach involves allocating the same level of attention and resources to psychiatric medicine as given to somatic illnesses, aiming to combat stigma and discrimination towards individuals with psychiatric conditions. Equitable treatment during life and at the end of life becomes the focus.
Yet, the Belgian context of psychiatry presents significant challenges. The field is characterized by underfunding and fragmented care, particularly for individuals with longstanding and complex psychiatric problems [53]. Additionally, the end-of-life care for psychiatric patients is still underdeveloped, and palliative psychiatry is in its early stages, lacking a uniformly agreed-upon definition or clear implementation guidelines [54]. In response, Belgium is exploring the “Oyster Care” model, designed to provide flexible, personalized care for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness who may be at risk of neglect or overburdened by psychiatric services [55]. This model aims to create a safe “exoskeleton” or supportive environment for patients, recognizing that recovery, reintegration, and resocialization might not be attainable for everyone with certain psychiatric conditions [55].
However, the integration of Oyster Care in today’s psychiatric practice is still limited and requires further development. Emphasizing the value of justice calls for continued efforts to enhance and refine psychiatric care, ensuring that individuals with psychiatric illnesses receive equitable treatment throughout their lives, including end-of-life care decisions [55, 56].
Implications for future research, policy, and practice
In terms of policy and practice, our findings indicate that the discourse surrounding euthanasia extends beyond legal or medical considerations and encompasses fundamental ethical values that underpin our society. These values may not always be aligned and can create ethical dilemmas that are challenging to address. A value-centred approach to the euthanasia debate necessitates a constructive ethical dialogue among various actors involved, including patients, healthcare practitioners, and the wider community. This conversation should strive to comprehend the diverse values involved and endeavour to achieve a balance between these values. Additionally, ethical dialogue might encourage individuals to reflect on their own assumptions and beliefs, leading to more informed and thoughtful decision-making on ethical and moral issues. Ultimately, ethical dialogue can promote a more just and equitable society that prioritizes empathy, understanding, and mutual respect.
It is also crucial to acknowledge that patients with somatic illnesses and those with psychiatric illnesses may have different needs and expectations regarding the end of life. Hence, end-of life healthcare must be sensitive to the unique needs of each group. This recognition of differences does not justify unequal treatment or discrimination based on the type of illness. Instead, it involves addressing the different needs and expectations of each patient group while ensuring equitable and high-quality care for all.
As regards research, most articles on euthanasia legislation to date placed the emphasis on what other countries and states can learn from the Belgian and Dutch euthanasia practice. In addition, what can be learned is mainly restricted to the evidence and reflections on factual issues from a global practical-clinical perspective. Consequently, one of the main ethical, clinical, and societal issues remains unrequited, namely the impact of legislation and its consequences on an intrapersonal, interpersonal, medical, social, and societal level. Although cultural diversity is recently put high on the research agenda concerning general health care and mental health care, it is largely understudied in the context of end-of-life decisions and largely ignored in the context of psychiatry. Fewer articles have focused on what the latter countries may learn from those not implementing or not considering euthanasia legislation. In an increasingly diverse society, rapidly evolving in terms of fluidity and multi-ethnicity, cross-cultural research can help us learn from one another. To address the many dimensions of euthanasia, there is a need for input from a variety of academic fields, including sociology, anthropology, communication studies, and history. Further interdisciplinary research in all these areas could help inform policy and practice related to euthanasia.
Strengths and limitations
This is the first empirical in-depth interview study that uncovered the underlying ethical considerations of a variety and relatively large sample of health care professionals and volunteers in Belgium, a country with one of the most permissive legislative frameworks regarding euthanasia, as – unlike in some other countries – it does not exclude adults with psychiatric conditions per definition. Belgium is also one of the pioneering countries with such a legislative framework and can boast on two decades of euthanasia legislation and implementation.
We succeeded in providing a unique and representative sample of participants, varying in gender, work setting and expertise, and stances regarding euthanasia. Finally, and unlike former scientific studies that focused on either the somatic or psychiatric context, we now gauged for participants’ ethical perspectives on euthanasia in both fields of medicine.
There are also several limitations to our study. We may have experienced selection bias, as our sample of non-physicians had varying ages, but the sample of physicians was mostly older than 60. In addition, some interviews had to be postponed or cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and, potentially, due to legal and emotional concerns surrounding a high-profile euthanasia case being brought to court. Additionally, our sample exhibited heterogeneity regarding worldview (religious or non-religious), but possibly not regarding other culture-sensitive aspects, like migration background. As our qualitative research focused on exploring themes, narratives, and shared experiences rather than on ensuring high participation rates for statistical generalizability, drawing definitive conclusions regarding the prevalence of each opinion (pro/ambivalent/critical/against), the level of experience, or perspective across the entire spectrum of euthanasia practice is beyond the scope of our study.
Finally, although there is a growing number of countries and states around the globe with a legislative framework on euthanasia, all the legal frameworks differ from one another, so the results of our study cannot be generalized to the specific euthanasia context in e.g., Switzerland or Canada.
link