What the paper argues

The paper argues that psychiatric euthanasia cannot be scientifically justified as a medical practice because psychiatry cannot objectively establish incurability, irreversibility or patient benefit.

The analysis examines the scientific, clinical and institutional foundations of psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands, including claims of incurability and untreatability, suicide-prevention arguments, treatment availability, waiting lists, the non-use or withholding of evidence-based treatments, sex differences, family pressure and family exclusion, published literature, expert authority, institutional advocacy, contagion risks, last-minute retractions, and cases in which patients labelled as untreatable later improved, withdrew their requests or survived.

Why this matters

The review describes a medical practice in which psychiatric patients may be declared incurable or untreatable without objective tests of incurability, while evidence-based treatments may be unavailable, delayed, not offered, or not exhausted.

It examines official claims that psychiatric euthanasia prevents suicide despite outcomes that do not demonstrate a suicide-prevention effect. It also examines patterns that should alarm anyone concerned with vulnerable patients and medical evidence: marked sex differences, especially among young women; patients approved for euthanasia who later withdrew their requests, improved or survived; families left unsupported; and institutions that may present euthanasia as care while effective psychiatric treatment remains inaccessible.

This is not merely a question of procedure. It is a scientific and clinical question: whether psychiatric euthanasia should exist at all when psychiatry cannot objectively establish incurability, irreversibility or patient benefit.

The Dutch public deserves to see the evidence and draw its own conclusions.

The campaign is therefore ready for public distribution.

What has already been done

• The medical and scientific evidence has been reviewed.

• The long-form paper has been written.

• The analysis has been revised, source-checked and prepared for publication.

• The Dutch version has been translated by a professional, certified Dutch legal translator registered in the
   Dutch Register of Sworn Interpreters and Translators (Rbtv).

• The translation has been personally funded by the organizer at a cost of approximately €2,500.

• The website has been built.

• The domains have been purchased and secured, including .nl, .com and .org.

• Downloadable PDF versions in Dutch and English are available.

Funding is sought for public visibility, not for unfinished research, writing or translation.

Why funding is needed

The evidence review is complete, but publication on a website alone is not enough.

Funding is needed for public visibility: newspaper placement, outdoor advertising, design adaptation, QR-code distribution, and targeted dissemination to journalists, physicians, policymakers, institutions and the wider Dutch public.

The purpose is to make the evidence visible enough that it cannot be ignored.

What donor support would fund

Donor support would be used for public dissemination costs, including:

• newspaper advertisements;

• outdoor poster or digital outdoor placement;

• professional layout or media-format adaptation, if required by newspapers or outdoor providers;

• printing or production costs where applicable;

• limited technical costs directly connected to publication, measurement or campaign security;

• possible professional advice only if required for legal, media or advertising compliance.

Funding targets

These are practical dissemination targets. They do not include payment for the completed research, writing or Dutch legal translation work already personally funded by the organizer.

Funding options

A donor may choose to support:

• one defined media placement;

• one city pilot;

• the full Dutch pilot campaign;

• a matching-donation challenge for crowdfunding;

• the wider national campaign;

• direct sponsorship of design, media placement or public distribution.

Support can be discussed privately and, where appropriate, allocated to a specific campaign component.

Author note

Peter Kronenberg, MD, PhD, is a consultant urological surgeon in Portugal and a Fellow of the European Board of Urology. He has held international roles in surgical education, research and medical technology, and has spent more than a year reviewing the medical and scientific evidence, clinical reasoning, reported outcomes and institutional practice surrounding psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Translation

The Dutch version of the paper was translated by a professional, certified Dutch legal translator registered in the Dutch Register of Sworn Interpreters and Translators (Rbtv).

Contact

For funding discussions, institutional support or donor introductions:

Please include your name, organization if applicable, and whether you wish to discuss a specific campaign component or general support.

contact@psychiatrischeeuthanasie.nl