↓ Skip to main content

Euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder: an examination of nine relevant euthanasia cases in the Netherlands (2012–2016)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 1,099)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
124 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder: an examination of nine relevant euthanasia cases in the Netherlands (2012–2016)
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0257-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Leopold Curfs, Ilora Finlay, Sheila Hollins

Abstract

Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) have been legally possible in the Netherlands since 2001, provided that statutory due care criteria are met, including: (a) voluntary and well-considered request; (b) unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement; (c) informing the patient; (d) lack of a reasonable alternative; (e) independent second physician's opinion. 'Unbearable suffering' must have a medical basis, either somatic or psychiatric, but there is no requirement of limited life expectancy. All EAS cases must be reported and are scrutinised by regional review committees (RTE). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether any particular difficulties arise when the EAS due care criteria are applied to patients with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder. The 416 case summaries available on the RTE website (2012-2016) were searched for intellectual disability (6) and autism spectrum disorder (3). Direct content analysis was used on these nine cases. Assessment of decisional capacity was mentioned in eight cases, but few details given; in two cases, there had been uncertainty or disagreement about capacity. Two patients had progressive somatic conditions. For most, suffering was due to an inability to cope with changing circumstances or increasing dependency; in several cases, suffering was described in terms of characteristics of living with an autism spectrum disorder, rather than an acquired medical condition. Some physicians struggled to understand the patient's perspective. Treatment refusal was a common theme, leading physicians to conclude that EAS was the only remaining option. There was a lack of detail on social circumstances and how patients were informed about their prognosis. Autonomy and decisional capacity are highly complex for patients with intellectual disabilities and difficult to assess; capacity tests in these cases did not appear sufficiently stringent. Assessment of suffering is particularly difficult for patients who have experienced life-long disability. The sometimes brief time frames and limited number of physician-patient meetings may not be sufficient to make a decision as serious as EAS. The Dutch EAS due care criteria are not easily applied to people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder, and do not appear to act as adequate safeguards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 124 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 183 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 12 7%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 57 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 19%
Psychology 34 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 63 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 182. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#219,108
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 1,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,109
of 338,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.