Reporting of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands: descriptive study
1 Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
2 University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands
3 VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
4 University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Section Metamedica, Groningen, the Netherlands
5 Academic Medical Center, Department of Social Medicine, Health Law Section, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
BMC Medical Ethics 2009, 10:18 doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-18Published: 27 October 2009
An important principle underlying the Dutch Euthanasia Act is physicians' responsibility to alleviate patients' suffering. The Dutch Act states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care. These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life. To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a review committee. We studied which arguments Dutch physicians use to substantiate their adherence to the criteria and which aspects attract review committees' attention.
We examined 158 files of reported euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide cases that were approved by the review committees. We studied the physicians' reports and the verdicts of the review committees by using a checklist.
Physicians reported that the patient's request had been well-considered because the patient was clear-headed (65%) and/or had repeated the request several times (23%). Unbearable suffering was often substantiated with physical symptoms (62%), function loss (33%), dependency (28%) or deterioration (15%). In 35%, physicians reported that there had been alternatives to relieve patients' suffering which were refused by the majority. The nature of the relationship with the consultant was sometimes unclear: the consultant was reported to have been an unknown colleague (39%), a known colleague (21%), otherwise (25%), or not clearly specified in the report (24%). Review committees relatively often scrutinized the consultation (41%) and the patient's (unbearable) suffering (32%); they had few questions about possible alternatives (1%).
Dutch physicians substantiate their adherence to the criteria in a variable way with an emphasis on physical symptoms. The information they provide is in most cases sufficient to enable adequate review. Review committees' control seems to focus on (unbearable) suffering and on procedural issues.