Dataset Information

Frames and counter-frames giving meaning to palliative care and euthanasia in the Netherlands

ABSTRACT:

Background

Based on the case of palliative care and euthanasia in the Netherlands, this paper presents an analysis of frames and counter-frames used in the ongoing public debate about these two intertwined topics. Each (counter)frame presents a cultural theme that can act as a prism to give meaning to palliative care and/or euthanasia. Each frame comprehends a different problem definition, consequences and policy options. Typical word choices and metaphors are identified that can evoke these frames and the underlying reasoning. The frames do not belong to a specific stakeholder but a pattern can be seen in their use that is related to interests and ideology.

Methods

An inductive framing analysis was conducted of 2,700 text fragments taken from various Dutch newspapers, websites of stakeholders and policy documents in the period 2016–2018. After an extensive process of thematic coding, axial coding, selective coding and peer review seven frames and seven counter-frames about palliative care and euthanasia were constructed. Fifteen experts in the field of palliative and/or end-of-life care commented on the overview during a member check.

Results

Two frames about palliative care were constructed: the Fear of death frame, which stresses the hopeless ‘terminality’ of palliative care and the Heavy burden frame, in which palliative care is too big a responsibility for the relatives of the patient. In addition, two counter-frames were constructed: palliative care as a contributor to Quality of life and Completion. With regard to euthanasia, five frames were identified that lead to a problematising definition: Thou shalt not kill, Slippery slope, Lack of willpower, I am not God, and Medical progress. Five counter-frames offer a non-problematising definition of euthanasia in the debate: Mercy, Prevention, Triumph of reason, Absolute autonomy, and Economic utility thinking.

Conclusions

The debate in the Netherlands on euthanasia and palliative care is characterized by a plurality of angles that goes beyond the bipolar distinction between the pros and cons of euthanasia and palliative care. Only with an overview of all potential frames in mind can an audience truly make informed decisions. The frame matrix is not only useful for policy makers to know all perspectives when joining public debate, but also to health care workers to get into meaningful conversations with their patients and families.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00772-9.

SUBMITTER: Van Gorp B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176618 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpinion about euthanasia has been explored among the general population and recently in patients receiving palliative care. 96% of the French population declared themselves in favor of euthanasia while less of 50% of palliative care patients are. The aim of the present study was to explore and identify potential determinant factors associated with favorable or unfavorable opinion about euthanasia in a French population of cancer patients receiving palliative care.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study among patients in two palliative care units. Eligible patients were identified by the medical staff. Face-to-face interviews were performed by two investigators. Two groups were defined as favorable or unfavorable about euthanasia according to the answer on the specific question about patient opinion on euthanasia. A multivariate analysis including age, belief in God, chemotherapy and gender was built.ResultsSeventy-eight patients were interviewed. Median age was 60.5 years (range: 31-87.2). In univariate analysis, patients with a favorable opinion were most often under 60 years old (62 versus 38% unfavorable; p = 0.035), in couple (64 versus 35%; p = 0.032), didn't believe in God (72 versus 28% were non-believers; p < 0.001) and had more frequently an history of chemotherapy treatment (58 versus 42% received at least one cycle of chemotherapy; p = 0.005). In a multivariate analysis, age < 60 years, absence of belief in God and an antecedent of chemotherapy were independently associated with a favorable opinion about euthanasia (OR = 0.237 [0.076-0.746]; p = 0.014, OR = 0.143 [0.044-0.469]; p = 0.001, and OR = 10.418 [2.093-51.853]; p = 0.004, respectively).ConclusionWe report here determinants of opinion about euthanasia in palliative care cancer patients. Thus, young patients who do not believe in God and have a history of chemotherapy treatment are more likely to request the discontinuation or restriction of their treatment. A better understanding of these determinants is essential for the development of information and/or interventions tailored to the palliative context.

Project description:BackgroundSpirituality is a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of human beings and should be a core component of quality palliative care. There is an urgent need to train hospice palliative care teams (HPCTs) to enhance their ability to provide spiritual care. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a meaning-centered, spiritual care training program (McSCTP) for HPCTs (McSCTP-HPCTs).MethodsThe modules' content was informed by Viktor Frankl's meaning-centered logotherapy with its emphasis on spiritual resources, as well as the spiritual care model of the Interprofessional Spiritual Care Education Curriculum (ISPEC). Following development, we conducted a pilot test with four nurses. We used the results to inform the final program, which we tested in an intervention involving 13 members of HPCTs. We took measurements using self-administered questionnaires at three points before and after the intervention. Using descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test, we analyzed the participants' demographic and career-related characteristics, as well as the degree of variance between three outcome variables: compassion fatigue (CF), spiritual care competencies (SCCs), and spiritual care therapeutics (SCT).ResultsWe divided the McSCTP-HPCTs into five modules. Module I: The HPCTs' SCC evaluation, understanding the major concepts of spiritual care and logotherapy; Modules II-IV: Meaning-centered interventions (MCIs) related to spiritual needs (existential, relational, and transcendental/religious); Module V: The process of meaning-centered spiritual care. The preliminary evaluation revealed significant differences in all three outcome variables at the posttest point (CF, p = 0.037; SCCs, p = 0.005; SCT, p = 0.002). At the four-week follow-up test point, we only found statistical significance with the SCCs (p = 0.006).ConclusionsThe McSCTP-HPCTs is suitable for use in clinical settings and provides evidence for assessing the SCCs of HPCTs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess how Dutch regional euthanasia review committees (RTE) apply the euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) due care criteria in cases where the criteria are judged not to have been met ('due care not met' (DCNM)) and to evaluate how the criteria function to set limits in Dutch EAS practice. DESIGN:A qualitative review using directed content analysis of DCNM cases in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2016 published on the RTE website (https://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/) as of 31 January 2017. RESULTS:Of 33 DCNM cases identified (occurring 2012-2016), 32 cases (97%) were published online and included in the analysis. 22 cases (69%) violated only procedural criteria, relating to improper medication administration or inadequate physician consultation. 10 cases (31%) failed to meet substantive criteria, with the most common violation involving the no reasonable alternative (to EAS) criterion (seven cases). Most substantive cases involved controversial elements, such as EAS for psychiatric disorders or 'tired of life', in incapacitated patients or by physicians from advocacy organisations. Even in substantive criteria cases, the RTE's focus was procedural. The cases were more about unorthodox, unprofessional or overconfident physician behaviours and not whether patients should have received EAS. However, in some cases, physicians knowingly pushed the limits of EAS law. Physicians from euthanasia advocacy organisations were over-represented in substantive criteria cases. Trained EAS consultants tended to agree with or facilitate EAS in DCNM cases. Physicians and families had difficulty applying ambiguous advance directives of incapacitated patients. CONCLUSION:As a retrospective review of physician self-reported data, the Dutch RTEs do not focus on whether patients should have received EAS, but instead primarily gauge whether doctors conducted EAS in a thorough, professional manner. To what extent this constitutes enforcement of strict safeguards, especially when cases contain controversial features, is not clear.