Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T19:34:46.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychiatric euthanasia, suicide and the role of gender

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Marie E. Nicolini*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA; and Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Chris Gastmans
Affiliation:
Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Scott Y.H. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA
*
Correspondence: Marie E. Nicolini. Email: marie.nicolini@kuleuven.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The preponderance of women among persons who request and receive euthanasia and assisted suicide based on a psychiatric condition, as shown by data from The Netherlands and Belgium, is virtually unexplored. We provide a critical discussion of this gender gap, and propose that it can inform a key debate point in the controversy over the practice, namely its conflict with suicide prevention.

Type
Analysis
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Euthanasia and/or medically assisted suicide when primarily based on a psychiatric disorder (often referred to as psychiatric EAS) is permitted in some European countries, such as Belgium and The Netherlands, but remains controversial.Reference Griffith, Weyers and Adams1,Reference Jones, Gastmans and MacKellar2 In those countries, EAS is permitted for persons who suffer unbearably and irremediably because of a medical (including psychiatric) condition. Women account for the majority (69–77%) of persons who request and receive euthanasia based on a psychiatric condition.Reference Kim, De Vries and Peteet3Reference Dierickx, Deliens, Cohen and Chambaere6 Although this is one of the most consistent findings emerging from the research on the topic, the gender gap and its meaning have received virtually no discussion.

In this paper, we discuss how understanding this gender gap can inform a key dispute in the debate about psychiatric EAS, namely its conflict with suicide prevention. One way to address this conflict is to argue that psychiatric EAS and suicide are different phenomena, characterising suicide as an impulsive act of violent self-destruction, and EAS as a planned and well-considered act.7 However, it is unclear whether this distinction is empirically founded. We will examine whether and how the gender gap can inform this question in an evidence-based manner.

In the following sections, we first briefly provide some background on psychiatric EAS in the Netherlands and Belgium, then critically examine current accounts of the difference between psychiatric EAS and suicide. Next, we turn to ideation-to-action theories of suicide, arguing that, when combined with the gender gap in psychiatric EAS, such theories support the hypothesis that differences between psychiatric EAS and suicide are not based on impulsivity, but rather on the notion of suicide ‘capability’. Finally, we outline the implications of this finding for the practice of psychiatric EAS. We argue that the pool of potential psychiatric EAS requestors and the associated risk for error might be higher than previously assumed, and explain how current guidance might contribute to this risk. We conclude by drawing some implications for public policy.

Psychiatric EAS in The Netherlands and Belgium

Legal requirements for EAS

According to the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act (2002), the substantive requirements are that the attending physician must be satisfied that the patient's request is voluntary and well-considered, and that the patient's suffering is unbearable and without prospect of improvement, and must have come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative in the patient's situation.Reference Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Legemaate, van Der Heide, van Delden, Evenblij and El Hammoud8,9 The Belgian Act Concerning Euthanasia (2002) has similar, albeit differently formulated, key substantive requirements: the physician must come to the conviction, together with the patient, that the request be voluntary, that the disorder be serious and incurable, and must ascertain that the physical or mental suffering of the patient cannot be alleviated.Reference Jones, Gastmans and MacKellar2 The procedural requirements and oversight systems in the two jurisdictions are discussed in the following.

Process and oversight systems for EAS

The Belgian Act requires that the physician consult a second physician – a psychiatrist, in cases of psychiatric EAS – and requires a waiting time of at least 1 month for all non-terminally ill cases, including requests based on a psychiatric disorder. Although the Dutch Act requires that the physician consults at least one other independent physician, it does not specify that this be a psychiatrist for psychiatric EAS cases. However, in these cases, a psychiatric consultation is required by the Dutch Euthanasia Review Committees. Both countries have established services providing such consultants: Support and Consultation for Euthanasia in the Netherlands and Life End Information Forum in Belgium. All EAS cases need to be reported to the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees and the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission on Euthanasia, respectively, in The Netherlands and Belgium. These committees review the EAS reports to assess whether the physician who performed EAS conformed to the legal due care criteria.Reference Jones, Gastmans and MacKellar2,9

Understanding the gender gap in psychiatric EAS

Current explanations for the difference between psychiatric EAS and suicide

Current explanations for the difference between psychiatric EAS and suicide describe different phenomena, with emphasis on the alleged different role of impulsive action in both cases.7,Reference den Hartogh10,Reference Kim, Conwell and Caine11 The American Association for Suicidology states that suicide and EAS, including psychiatric EAS, are in general quite distinct, involving different patient characteristics. They characterise suicide as associated with violent self-destruction, isolation, loss of meaning, ambivalence and psychological pain. On the other hand, they describe persons requesting EAS as engaging in a planned act of self-preservation, experiencing intensified emotional bonds with loved ones.7 Others have also characterised suicide as a quasi-impulsive, violent and lonely act, to be distinguished from EAS, which is seen as a carefully executed, non-violent plan in dialogue with others.Reference den Hartogh10 Some guidelines on psychiatric EAS state that suicidal behaviour ‘usually involves impulsive behaviour’, as opposed to the death wish in psychiatric EAS.12 Currently, the same distinction is proposed to explain the different gender distributions in suicide and psychiatric EAS: suicides are violent and impulsive (hence the greater proportion of men), whereas psychiatric EAS is planned and controlled (hence the greater proportion of women).Reference van Veen, Weerheim, Mostert and van Delden5

Such contrasting portrayals of persons who die by suicide and those who die by EAS as fundamentally different rely on unfounded assumptions.Reference Kim, Conwell and Caine11 Their key reliance on impulsivity can be challenged, as the role of impulsive action in suicide has been overstated, and only very little suicidal behaviour (lethal or non-lethal) occurs without planning.Reference Anestis, Soberay, Gutierrez, Hernández and Joiner13Reference O'Connor and Nock15 In fact, impulsive attempts are associated with lower psychopathology,Reference Anestis, Soberay, Gutierrez, Hernández and Joiner13 whereas individuals who are at particularly high risk for suicide (i.e. those with depression, substance use and/or a history of childhood sexual abuse) are less likely to engage in impulsive attempts. Impulsive action is neither necessary nor sufficient for suicide, and cannot explain the difference between suicide and psychiatric EAS, nor its different gender distributions.

We should therefore re-examine this empirically unsupported assumption. For this purpose, we will consider the usefulness of ideation-to-action theories, which focus on the suicidal process from suicidal ideation to behaviour.Reference Klonsky, May and Saffer14Reference Van Orden, Witte, Cukrowicz, Braithwaite, Selby and Joiner16 This framework has received considerable clinical and research attention.Reference O'Connor and Nock15,Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17 Rather than emphasising the role of suicide risk factors, it focuses on the concept of suicide ‘capability’, which determines the transition from suicidal ideation to (lethal and non-lethal) suicidal behaviour. Within this framework, ‘capability’ includes practical factors (knowledge of and access to highly lethal means) and psychological factors (fearlessness of death, pain tolerance), both of which can be acquired over time.Reference Klonsky, May and Saffer14Reference Franklin, Hessel and Prinstein19 In the following sections, we analyse the gender distributions in suicide and psychiatric EAS, and examine the potential role for capability as an alternative, empirically grounded explanation for the relationship between suicide and psychiatric EAS.

Capability, gender and suicide

The difference between the gender distribution in suicide and in suicide attempts is well known, and is referred to as the suicide ‘gender paradox’.Reference Schrijvers, Bollen and Sabbe18,Reference Canetto and Sakinofsky20 The most consistently cited explanation for this paradox is the gender difference in methods chosen: women choose less violent and lethal methods than men.Reference Schrijvers, Bollen and Sabbe18,Reference Hawton21 For example, men tend to use methods such as hanging or fire-arms, whereas women often choose self-poisoning. Research suggests that differences in capability among those who attempt suicide is why more men die by suicide than women.Reference O'Connor and Nock15

The choice for low lethality methods may indicate lower suicide capability, especially as it relates to the psychological aspects, since these methods may be perceived as involving less physical pain and be relatively less frightening.Reference O'Connor and Nock15,Reference Nock, Hwang, Sampson and Kessler22 Furthermore, the robust finding that women show a higher number of non-lethal attempts before a lethal attempt is consistent with the claim that through repeated attempts, women gradually increase their capability and the lethality of their attempts.Reference Anestis, Soberay, Gutierrez, Hernández and Joiner13,Reference Van Orden, Witte, Cukrowicz, Braithwaite, Selby and Joiner16,Reference Schrijvers, Bollen and Sabbe18,Reference Isometsa and Lonnqvist23

We note, however, that other authors emphasise sociocultural beliefs and attitudes toward suicidal behaviour in explaining gender differences in suicide.Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17,Reference Dahlen and Canetto24 For example, in Western countries, non-lethal suicidal behaviour is considered more socially acceptable for women than for men, but this may be different in non-Western countries.Reference Dahlen and Canetto24 High female suicide rates in countries like ChinaReference Turecki and Brent25 show that women's so-called low capability for suicide in Western countries may vary depending on the sociocultural context.

Capability, gender and psychiatric EAS

The above capability framework suggests a natural explanation of the gender gap in psychiatric EAS, and better conforms to the known literature on suicide than an explanation based on impulsivity. EAS is a painless and highly lethal method of death, which is professionally and socially approved in countries where it is legal. The important psychological components of capability involve the ability to face death and to enact something painful to one's own body.Reference Van Orden, Witte, Cukrowicz, Braithwaite, Selby and Joiner16,Reference Franklin, Hessel and Prinstein19 The latter barrier, for instance, is removed when someone receives EAS, as it does not involve pain or violence.

This finding is analogous to the well-known case in suicidology of high female suicide rates in rural China. This is attributed to men's and women's equal access to readily available, non-violent but highly lethal pesticides, as opposed to the less toxic analgesics and psychotropic medications commonly ingested in high-income countries.Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17,Reference Schrijvers, Bollen and Sabbe18,Reference Turecki and Brent25,26 The case of rural China shows that mortality significantly increases when persons with a strong death wish have access to non-violent, lethal methods.

If the different gender distributions in suicide and psychiatric EAS are primarily accounted for by differences in capability, we should expect similar gender ratios between those who attempt suicide (as opposed to those who complete suicide) and persons receiving psychiatric EAS. And this is what we find. Men are two to three times more likely to die by suicide than women in most countries, including The Netherlands, whereas women are about twice as likely (2.1:1) to attempt suicide.Reference Kim, De Vries and Peteet3,Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17,26,Reference Bernal, Haro, Bernert, Brugha, de Graaf and Bruffaerts27 The women:men ratio in psychiatric EAS (2.3:1) is virtually identical to that of those who attempt suicide, not those who complete it.

This suggests that the relationship between suicide and psychiatric EAS is not based the problematic concept of impulsivity. Rather, capability is more likely to explain why some patients resort to EAS rather than suicide. This suggests that patient profiles of people requesting and receiving psychiatric EAS could be more similar in terms of suicidal behaviour than previously assumed.Reference Kim, Conwell and Caine11 Persons with a strong death wish but low capability, who might not die if they attempt suicide, can achieve death if they use EAS instead.

Discussion

Whether psychiatric EAS conflicts with the duty to prevent suicide remains a topic of debate. One way to address this conflict is to distinguish between suicide and (psychiatric) EAS, by characterising suicide as an impulsive, typically violent action, and EAS as planned and well considered.7 However, this distinction is not well-grounded empirically and does little to refute the claim that psychiatric EAS is in conflict with suicide prevention. Ideation-to-action explanations of suicide, focusing on the suicidal process, suggest that the distinction is not as straightforward as some have argued. The notion of capability that they invoke suggests that the gender paradox in suicide is closely related to the gender gap in psychiatric EAS: women resort to psychiatric EAS as a form of suicide of which they are ‘capable’. And, as we have shown, the numbers are consistent with this analysis. Persons requesting and receiving psychiatric EAS tend to be similar to those attempting suicide, a finding corroborated by emerging data from the practice of psychiatric EAS.Reference Kim, De Vries and Peteet3,Reference Kim, Conwell and Caine11,Reference Verhofstadt, Thienpont and Peters28,Reference Nicolini, Peteet, Donovan and Kim29 In suicide terms, the use of EAS turns those who attempt suicide with low capability into those who complete suicide. This raises several, so far underexplored, implications for the practice of psychiatric EAS and public policy.

First, it suggests that the number of persons engaging in suicidal behaviour, both non-lethal and lethal (i.e. those who attempt and those who complete suicide), could provide an approximation of the pool size of potential psychiatric EAS requestors. For example, in a country like Belgium, with 11 million inhabitants and notoriously high suicide rates, the region of Flanders counts three suicides and an estimated average of 28 suicide attempts per day.Reference Vancayseele, Portzky, van Heeringen, Cloots, Hendrickx and Kongs30 This amounts to 1095 suicides and over 10 000 suicide attempts per year – nine attempts for every suicide. It is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of these persons might consider psychiatric EAS at some point during their suicidal process, as psychiatric EAS becomes better known as an option. Hence, the pool of potential requestors is likely large, perhaps more so than previously assumed.

For some, providing a more humane alternative to persons who would otherwise die by suicide is the aim of psychiatric EAS.Reference Truyts31,Reference Nicolini, Kim, Churchill and Gastmans32 For example, psychiatrist Lieve Thienpont, one of the three physicians acquitted in the Belgian Tine Nys court trial, stated that ‘We have 3 to 4 suicides per day in Flanders, 90% of whom suffer mentally. What can we do to shift this suicidal thought to a request for euthanasia?’.Reference Truyts31 However, this view does not take into account that such a shift would not be limited to those who complete suicide.

Second, a large pool of potential requestors that mostly consists of those who attempt suicide raises the issue of an increased opportunity for error, i.e. the risk for avoidable deaths. The risk for error is a known area of dispute in the debate about psychiatric EAS.Reference Nicolini, Kim, Churchill and Gastmans32 Scholars disagree on whether it should count as an argument against psychiatric EAS or merely as grounds for caution. Regardless of where one stands, the dispute has so far mainly referred to potential errors in assessing the irremediability of the person's psychiatric condition, their unbearable suffering or their decision-making capacity. The findings of our analysis point to a different type of risk, namely the one associated with not detecting suicidal behaviour that could respond to treatment. The question is particularly salient for subgroups with low suicide capability and a more protracted suicide process, like women or younger adults,Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17,Reference Schrijvers, Bollen and Sabbe18 as the choice of psychiatric EAS over traditional means of suicide could result in a substantial increase in mortality. That is, the difference between expected mortality rates through suicide versus through EAS could be highest in these subgroups and the risk for error may, on average, come at a higher cost for each individual.

One way to address this conundrum is by establishing clear guidance for clinicians, to identify those whose requests for psychiatric EAS stem from suicidal ideation and behaviour that could respond to treatment. Currently, guidelines are silent on whether suicidal ideation and behaviour should play a role in how ‘irremediability’ is defined, potentially exacerbating the risk for error. In fact, they define the criterion exclusively in terms of treatment options for the underlying psychiatric condition.12,Reference Vandenberghe, Titeca, Matthys, Van den Broeck, Detombe and Claes33 This may be because of the assumption that treating a psychiatric condition will also improve associated suicidal behaviour. However, this assumption is mistaken. Treatments targeting a psychiatric condition do not necessarily reduce suicidal thoughts or behaviour.Reference O'Connor and Nock15 Furthermore, although established evidence-based treatments for suicidal behaviour exist, including pharmacological and psychological treatment, only about 60% of people with suicidal ideation and behaviour receive treatment.Reference O'Connor and Nock15 This raises important questions about the extent of unmet needs among persons at risk for suicide who request psychiatric EAS.

For example, psychological treatments such as dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder or cognitive therapy for those who have recently attempted suicide have proven effective.Reference O'Connor and Nock15,Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17 However, in a recent analysis, we found that these interventions are rare among persons receiving psychiatric EAS: cognitive therapies were reported in 14% and dialectical behaviour therapy in 0% of the 74 included personality-related disorder cases, whereas 47% had attempted suicide once and 36% had attempted suicide multiple times before their request.Reference Nicolini, Peteet, Donovan and Kim29 To reduce the risk that a psychiatric EAS request actually stems from suicidal behaviour, further discussion is needed about the role for established suicidal behaviour treatments in current guidance defining irremediability. This also points to the need for sufficient and independent expertise in these evaluations going forward, as both The Netherlands and Belgium continue to face difficulties recruiting psychiatrists who are willing to be actively involved in these evaluations.Reference Truyts31,34,Reference van de Wier M35

Finally, the similarities between persons at risk for suicide and those requesting psychiatric EAS calls for further attention to population-wide suicide risk factors that may apply to psychiatric EAS. For example, the effect of media reporting on imitation behaviour is a risk factor targeted in key population-level suicide prevention strategies.Reference Turecki, Brent, Gunnell, O'Connor, Oquendo and Pirkis17 Although the regulation of media reporting does not apply to (psychiatric) EAS, similar patterns of imitation could be expected in persons who consider requesting psychiatric EAS. To assume that the same patterns do not apply is only tenable if the clinical profiles are distinct, but not if they appear similar. Yet patients’ perceptions and attitudes toward others’ deaths by psychiatric EAS remains an open empirical question.

The overlap between suicide and psychiatric EAS calls for further research to better characterise persons who request psychiatric EAS. Given that the majority of people who attempt suicide are women, particular attention should be paid to women's reasons for requesting psychiatric EAS. This includes possible reasons for why women are more likely to express a death wish in the first place, why some persons with a death wish request psychiatric EAS and others do not, and why some proceed with their request once it is granted and others withdraw. But, if some of the reasons also include known actionable societal or gendered risk factors for mental disorders and suicidal behaviour, this raises additional issues warranting attention in the context of psychiatric EAS and public policy.

For example, gender-based violence, affecting 35% of women worldwide, is a clear example of a gendered environmental risk factor for mental disorders and suicidal behaviour that is common among persons requesting psychiatric EAS,Reference Verhofstadt, Thienpont and Peters28,Reference Nicolini, Peteet, Donovan and Kim29 and an important public health issue for which prevention and management remains suboptimal.Reference Oram, Khalifeh and Howard36,37 Other gender-specific risk factors for common mental disorders include gender-based discrimination and unfavourable social and economic circumstances, such as low employment, income inequality, low social rank and status, and the unequal division of domestic labour and care.37 Hence, the findings of this analysis raise implications for policy and research that go far beyond the boundaries of psychiatry.

Conclusions

Despite being empirically well established, the gender gap in psychiatric EAS has been underexplored so far. An analysis of its meaning using the ideation-to-action suicide theories shows that the gender gap provides key evidence that persons requesting and receiving psychiatric EAS could be more similar to persons engaging in suicidal behaviour than previously assumed. This raises important implications for the practice of psychiatric EAS and public policy.

Acknowledgements

We thank Kimberly Van Orden, PhD, Eric Caine, MD and Yeates Conwell, MD (University of Rochester); Silvia Canetto, PhD (Colorado State University); Diane O'Leary, PhD (University of Pittsburgh); and Tadeusz Zawidzki, PhD (George Washington University), for their feedback provided on an earlier draft of this manuscript. No compensation was provided.

Author contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work. All authors drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

This work was funded in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, USA (grant number: Z99 CL999999; M.E.N. and S.Y.H.K.).

Declaration of interest

None.

References

Griffith, J, Weyers, H, Adams, M. Euthanasia and Law in Europe. Hart Publishing, 2008.Google Scholar
Jones, DA, Gastmans, C, MacKellar, C. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Lessons from Belgium. Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SY, De Vries, RG, Peteet, JR. Euthanasia and assisted suicide of patients with psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014. JAMA Psychiatry 2016; 73(4): 362–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thienpont, L, Verhofstadt, M, Van Loon, T, Distelmans, W, Audenaert, K, De Deyn, PP. Euthanasia requests, procedures and outcomes for 100 Belgian patients suffering from psychiatric disorders: a retrospective, descriptive study. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e007454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Veen, SMP, Weerheim, FW, Mostert, M, van Delden, JJM. Euthanasia of Dutch psychiatric patients in 2015–2017. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2019; 61(4): 241–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Dierickx, S, Deliens, L, Cohen, J, Chambaere, K. Euthanasia for people with psychiatric disorders or dementia in Belgium: analysis of officially reported cases. BMC Psychiatry 2017; 17: 203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Association of Suicidology. Statement of the American Association of Suicidology: ‘Suicide’ Is Not the Same as ‘Physician Aid in Dying’. American Association of Suicidology, 2017 (https://suicidology.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/AAS-PAD-Statement-Approved-10.30.17-ed-10-30-17.pdf).Google Scholar
Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD, Legemaate, J, van Der Heide, A, van Delden, H, Evenblij, K, El Hammoud, I, et al. Derde Evaluatie Wet Toesting Levensbeeindiging op Verzoek en Hulp bij Zelfdoding. [Third Evaluation of the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act.] The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), 2017 (https://publicaties.zonmw.nl/fileadmin/zonmw/documenten/Kwaliteit_van_zorg/Evaluatie_Regelgeving/Derde_evaluatie_Wtl.pdf).Google Scholar
Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. Euthanasia Code 2018: Review Procedures in Practice. Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, 2018 (https://english.euthanasiecommissie.nl/the-committees/code-of-practice).Google Scholar
den Hartogh, G. Two kinds of suicide. Bioethics 2016; 30(9): 672–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SYH, Conwell, Y, Caine, ED. Suicide and physician-assisted death for persons with psychiatric disorders: how much overlap? JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75(11): 1099–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nederlanse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie. Levensbeëindiging op Verzoek bij Patiënten met een Psychische Stoornis. [Termination of Life on Request in Patients with a Mental Disorder.] Federation of Medical Specialists, 2018 (https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/levensbeeindiging_op_verzoek_psychiatrie/startpagina_-_levensbe_indiging_op_verzoek.html).Google Scholar
Anestis, MD, Soberay, KA, Gutierrez, PM, Hernández, TD, Joiner, TE. Reconsidering the link between impulsivity and suicidal behavior. Pers Soc Psychol 2014; 18(4): 366–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klonsky, ED, May, AM, Saffer, BY. Suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016; 12(1): 307–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, RC, Nock, MK. The psychology of suicidal behaviour. Lancet Psychiatry 2014; 1(1): 7385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Orden, KA, Witte, TK, Cukrowicz, KC, Braithwaite, SR, Selby, EA, Joiner, TE Jr. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychol Rev 2010; 117(2): 575600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turecki, G, Brent, DA, Gunnell, D, O'Connor, RC, Oquendo, MA, Pirkis, J, et al. Suicide and suicide risk. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019; 5(1): 74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrijvers, DL, Bollen, J, Sabbe, BG. The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process. J Affect Disord 2012; 138(1–2): 1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, JC, Hessel, ET, Prinstein, MJ. Clarifying the role of pain tolerance in suicidal capability. Psychiatry Res 2011; 189(3): 362–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canetto, SS, Sakinofsky, I. The gender paradox in suicide. SuicideLife Threat Behav 1998; 28(1): 123.Google ScholarPubMed
Hawton, K. Sex and suicide. Gender differences in suicidal behaviour. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177: 484–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nock, MK, Hwang, I, Sampson, NA, Kessler, RC. Mental disorders, comorbidity and suicidal behavior: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Mol Psychiatry 2010; 15(8): 868–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isometsa, ET, Lonnqvist, JK. Suicide attempts preceding completed suicide. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 173: 531–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlen, ER, Canetto, SS. The role of gender and suicide precipitant in attitudes toward nonfatal suicide behavior. Death Stud 2002; 26(2): 99116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turecki, G, Brent, DA. Suicide and suicidal behaviour. Lancet 2016; 387(10024): 1227–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization Global Health Observatory. Age-Standardized Suicide Rates. WHO, 2019 (https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mental-health).Google Scholar
Bernal, M, Haro, JM, Bernert, S, Brugha, T, de Graaf, R, Bruffaerts, R, et al. Risk factors for suicidality in Europe: results from the ESEMED study. J Affect Disord 2007; 101(1–3): 2734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhofstadt, M, Thienpont, L, Peters, GY. When unbearable suffering incites psychiatric patients to request euthanasia: qualitative study. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211(4): 238–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolini, ME, Peteet, JR, Donovan, GK, Kim, SYH. Euthanasia and assisted suicide of persons with psychiatric disorders: the challenge of personality disorders. Psychol Med 2020; 50(4): 575–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vancayseele, N, Portzky, G, van Heeringen, K, Cloots, H, Hendrickx, E, Kongs, A, et al. Kenmerken Suicidepogingen in Gent en Vlaanderen. [Characteristics of Suicide Attempts in Ghent and Flanders.] Agency for Care and Health, 2018 (https://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/EZO_su%C3%AFcidepogingen_2017.pdf).Google Scholar
Truyts, J. Psychiater Lieve Thienpont strijdvaardig na vrijspraak op euthanasieproces: ‘Ik zet mijn werk voort, dat Is zeker’. [Psychiatrist Lieve Thienpont combatant after euthanasia process acquittal: 'I will continue my work, that's for sure'.] VRT NWS, 2020 (https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/02/02/euthanasieproces-zevende-dag/).Google Scholar
Nicolini, ME, Kim, SYH, Churchill, ME, Gastmans, C. Should euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders be permitted? A systematic review of reasons. Psychol Med 2020; 50(8): 1241–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenberghe, J, Titeca, K, Matthys, F, Van den Broeck, K, Detombe, T, Claes, S, et al. Hoe Omgaan met een Euthanasieverzoek in Psychiatrie Binnen het Huidig Wettelijk Kader? Adviestekst van de Vlaamse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie (VVP) over te Hanteren Zorgvuldigheidsvereisten. [How to Deal with a Euthanasia Request in Psychiatry Within the Current Legal Framework? Advisory Report of the Flemish Association for Psychiatry (VVP) on Handling the Due Care Requirements.] Flemish Association for Psychiatry, 2017 (http://vvponline.be/uploads/docs/bib/euthanasie_finaal_vvp_1_dec.pdf).Google Scholar
Huisman C. Levenseindekliniek kan de vraag niet aan en zoekt tientallen nieuwe artsen. [End-of-Life Clinic Cannot Meet the Demand and is Looking for Dozens of New Doctors] De Volkskrant, 2017 (https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/levenseindekliniek-kan-de-vraag-niet-aan-en-zoekt-tientallen-nieuwe-artsen~b3bff775/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)Google Scholar
van de Wier M, . Drie jaar vechten om te mogen sterven: wachten op euthanasie in de psychiatrie. [Three Years' Fight to be Allowed to Die: Waiting for Euthanasia in Psychiatry] Trouw. 2019 (https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/drie-jaar-vechten-om-te-mogen-sterven-wachten-op-euthanasie-in-de-psychiatrie~b2de0bbd/).Google Scholar
Oram, S, Khalifeh, H, Howard, LM. Violence against women and mental health. Lancet Psychiatry 2017; 4(2): 159–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence. Gender Disparities in Mental Health. WHO, 2001 (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/242.pdf).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.