Case report: Organ donation after euthanasia for psychiatric suffering: some of the practical and ethical lessons Martijn taught us.

Euthanasia in psychiatric patients presents unique challenges, especially when combined with organ donation. In this article, the hurdles psychiatric patients might encounter after expressing their wish for organ donation after euthanasia, are discussed and illustrated by the case of Martijn, a 45-year-old psychiatric patient who altruistically donated his organs after euthanasia. Hospital and physician-related factors, including caution in determination of mental capacity, consideration of conflicting interests, and healthcare staff stress are discussed as impediments to organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in psychiatric patients. The primary objective of this article is to raise awareness among psychiatrists regarding the fact that although the combination of euthanasia and organ donation is an uncommonly performed procedure, it is frequently requested by psychiatric patients. In conclusion, the article advocates for a nuanced approach, respecting patients' altruistic wishes while at the same time addressing challenges associated with ODE in psychiatric suffering. Where possible, and within the current medical, ethical and legal boundaries, the importance of facilitating organ donation without unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of competent psychiatric patients seeking euthanasia is emphasized. The topic calls, for example, for further qualitative research to understand the stakeholders' perspectives to determine the perceived possibilities on the one hand and boundaries on the other.

Directed Organ Donation After Euthanasia.

Organ donation after euthanasia is performed in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Spain. Directed deceased organ donation is currently possible under strict conditions in a limited number of countries, while it is currently not possible to opt for directed donation following euthanasia. While organ donation after euthanasia is a deceased donation procedure, directed organ donation after euthanasia could be seen as a deceased donation procedure with a living donation consent process. Therefore, directed organ donation after euthanasia is feasible on medical and ethical grounds. Strict safeguards should be in place, including the requirement of a pre-existing familial or personal relationship with the proposed recipient, without any evidence of coercion or financial gain.

Reply to reaction on 'Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy - case report'.

We would like to respond to the comment we received from our colleagues on our case report about organ donation after euthanasia starting at home. We reply to their statements on medical and legal aspects, and provide more information on our view of informed consent.

Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands.

Euthanasia based on psychiatric suffering, followed by subsequent organ donation, is considered medically and legally permissible in the Netherlands. Although organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in patients suffering from unbearable psychiatric illness is performed, it is not specifically addressed in the Dutch guideline on organ donation after euthanasia, and national data on ODE in psychiatric patients have not yet been published. In this article, the preliminary results of the 10-year Dutch case series of psychiatric patients who choose ODE are presented and potential factors influencing opportunities for donation in this population are discussed. We conclude that further future in-depth qualitative exploration of ODE in patients suffering from psychiatric illness and its associated ethical and practical dilemmas, including the consequences for the patient and their family and healthcare professionals, will be important to help make sense of potential barriers to donation for people undergoing euthanasia as a result of psychiatric suffering.

Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy.

BACKGROUND: A patient who fulfils the due diligence requirements for euthanasia, and is medically suitable, is able to donate his organs after euthanasia in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. Since 2012, more than 70 patients have undergone this combined procedure in the Netherlands. Even though all patients who undergo euthanasia are suffering hopelessly and unbearably, some of these patients are nevertheless willing to help others in need of an organ. Organ donation after euthanasia is a so-called donation after circulatory death (DCD), Maastricht category III procedure, which takes place following cardiac arrest, comparable to donation after withdrawal of life sustaining therapy in critically ill patients. To minimize the period of organ ischemia, the patient is transported to the operating room immediately after the legally mandated no-touch period of 5 min following circulatory arrest. This means that the organ donation procedure following euthanasia must take place in the hospital, which appears to be insurmountable to many patients who are willing to donate, since they already spent a lot of time in the hospital. CASE PRESENTATION: This article describes the procedure of organ donation after euthanasia starting at home (ODAEH) following anesthesia in a former health care professional suffering from multiple system atrophy. This case is unique for at least two reasons. He spent his last conscious hours surrounded by his family at home, after which he underwent general anaesthesia and was intubated, before being transported to the hospital for euthanasia and organ donation. In addition, the patient explicitly requested the euthanasia to be performed in the preparation room, next to the operating room, in order to limit the period of organ ischemia due to transport time from the intensive care unit to the operating room. The medical, legal and ethical considerations related to this illustrative case are subsequently discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation after euthanasia is a pure act of altruism. This combined procedure can also be performed after the patient has been anesthetized at home and during transportation to the hospital.

Moral distress and ethical climate in intensive care medicine during COVID-19: a nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created ethical challenges for intensive care unit (ICU) professionals, potentially causing moral distress. This study explored the levels and causes of moral distress and the ethical climate in Dutch ICUs during COVID-19. METHODS: An extended version of the Measurement of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) and Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ) were online distributed among all 84 ICUs. Moral distress scores in nurses and intensivists were compared with the historical control group one year before COVID-19. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five nurses (70.7%), 40 intensivists (8.2%), and 103 supporting staff (21.1%) completed the survey. Moral distress levels were higher for nurses than supporting staff. Moral distress levels in intensivists did not differ significantly from those of nurses and supporting staff. "Inadequate emotional support for patients and their families" was the highest-ranked cause of moral distress for all groups of professionals. Of all factors, all professions rated the ethical climate most positively regarding the culture of mutual respect,  ethical awareness and support. "Culture of not avoiding end-of-life-decisions" and "Self-reflective and empowering leadership" received the lowest mean scores. Moral distress scores during COVID-19 were significantly lower for ICU nurses (p < 0.001) and intensivists (p < 0.05) compared to one year prior. CONCLUSION: Levels and causes of moral distress vary between ICU professionals and differ from the historical control group. Targeted interventions that address moral distress during a crisis are desirable to improve the mental health and retention of ICU professionals and the quality of patient care.