Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book is the first comprehensive report and analysis of the Dutch euthanasia experience over the last three decades. In contrast to most books about euthanasia, which are written by authors from countries where the practice is illegal and therefore practiced only secretly, this book analyzes empirical data and real-life clinical behavior. Its essays were written by the leading Dutch scholars and clinicians who shaped euthanasia policy and who have studied, evaluated, and helped regulate it. Some of them have themselves practiced euthanasia. The book will contribute to the world literature on physician-assisted death by providing a comprehensive examination of how euthanasia has been practiced and how it has evolved in one specific national and cultural context. It will greatly advance the understanding of euthanasia among both advocates and opponents of the practice\"--Provided by publisher.

On 11 September 2019, the verdict was read in the first prosecution of a doctor for euthanasia since the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act of 2002 was installed in the Netherlands. The case concerned euthanasia on the basis of an advance euthanasia directive (AED) for a patient with severe dementia. In this paper we describe the review process for euthanasia cases in the Netherlands. Then we describe the case in detail, the judgement of the Regional Review Committees for Termination of Life on Request and Euthanasia (RTE) and the judgement of the medical disciplinary court. Both the review committees and the disciplinary court came to the conclusion there were concerns with this case, which mainly hinged on the wording of the AED. They also addressed the lack of communication with the patient, the absence of oral confirmation of the wish to die and the fact that the euthanasia was performed without the patient being aware of this. However, the doctor was acquitted by the criminal court as the court found she had in fact met all due care criteria laid down in the act. We then describe what this judgement means for euthanasia in the Netherlands. It clarifies the power and reach of AEDs, it allows taking conversations with physicians and the testimony of the family into account when interpreting the AED. However, as a practical consequence the prosecution of this physician has led to fear among doctors about prosecution after euthanasia.

BackgroundEuthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) in patients with psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living (without severe morbidity) is highly controversial. Although such cases can fall under the Dutch Euthanasia Act, Dutch physicians seem reluctant to perform EAS, and it is not clear whether or not physicians reject the possibility of EAS in these cases.AimTo determine whether physicians can conceive of granting requests for EAS in patients with cancer, another physical disease, psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living, and to evaluate whether physician characteristics are associated with conceivability. A cross-sectional study (survey) was conducted among 2269 Dutch general practitioners, elderly care physicians and clinical specialists.ResultsThe response rate was 64% (n=1456). Most physicians found it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS in a patient with cancer or another physical disease (85% and 82%). Less than half of the physicians found this conceivable in patients with psychiatric disease (34%), early-stage dementia (40%), advanced dementia (29–33%) or tired of living (27%). General practitioners were most likely to find it conceivable that they would perform EAS.ConclusionsThis study shows that a minority of Dutch physicians find it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS from a patient with psychiatric disease, dementia or a patient who is tired of living. For physicians who find EAS inconceivable in these cases, legal arguments and personal moral objections both probably play a role.

Several countries in Europe and in North and South America already allow doctors to help patients end their lives. Caroline White, Owen Dyer, and Aser García Rada report

Authorising euthanasia and assisted suicide with advance euthanasia directives (AEDs) is permitted, yet debated, in the Netherlands. We focus on a recent controversial case in which a Dutch woman with Alzheimer’s disease was euthanised based on her AED. A Dutch euthanasia review committee found that the physician performing the euthanasia failed to follow due care requirements for euthanasia and assisted suicide. This case is notable because it is the first case to trigger a criminal investigation since the 2002 Dutch euthanasia law was enacted. Thus far, only brief descriptions of the case have been reported in English language journals and media. We provide a detailed description of the case, review the main challenges of preparing and applying AEDs for persons with dementia and briefly assess the adequacy of the current oversight system governing AEDs.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are common practice in the Netherlands. In response to increasing requests from patients to end their lives, physicians are finding themselves placed in particularly precarious situations because of advance directives written by patients suffering from severe dementia. In April 2020, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued two judgments in the so-called Dormicum case: a case involving the deliberate termination of the life of a 74-year-old woman suffering from advanced dementia by a geriatrician in a nursing home in The Hague. The judgment of the lower criminal court was upheld, but the sanction imposed by the appellate disciplinary court was quashed. In this paper, the author reviews the two Supreme Court rulings, argues that both are fundamentally flawed and raises questions as to what they mean for Dutch criminal law, physicians, and patients going forward.

Background: Euthanasia has been legally performed in the Netherlands since 2002. Respect for patient’s autonomy is the underpinning ethical principal. However, patients have no right to euthanasia, and physicians have no obligation to provide it. Although over 3000 cases are conducted per year in the Netherlands, there is little known about how decision-making occurs and no guidance to support this difficult aspect of clinical practice. Aim: To explore the decision-making process in cases where patients request euthanasia and understand the different themes relevant to optimise this decision-making process. Design: A qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with patients making explicit requests for euthanasia, most-involved relative(s) and treating physician. Participants/setting: Thirty-two cases, 31 relatives and 28 treating physicians. Settings were patients’ and relatives’ homes and physicians’ offices. Results: Five main themes emerged: (1) initiation of sharing views and values about euthanasia, (2) building relationships as part of the negotiation, (3) fulfilling legal requirements, (4) detailed work of preparing and performing euthanasia and (5) aftercare and closing. Conclusions: A patient’s request for euthanasia entails a complex process that demands emotional work by all participants. It is characterised by an intensive period of sharing information, relationship building and negotiation in order to reach agreement. We hypothesise that making decisions about euthanasia demands a proactive approach towards participants’ preferences and values regarding end of life, towards the needs of relatives, towards the burden placed on physicians and a careful attention to shared decision-making. Future research should address the communicational skills professionals require for such complex decision-making.

In The Netherlands, relatively more patients (20%) with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) die due to euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) compared with patients with cancer (5%) or heart failure (0.5%). We wanted to gain insight into the reasons for ALS patients requesting EAS and compare these with the reasons of cancer and heart failure patients. Knowing disease-specific reasons for requesting EAS may improve palliative care in these vulnerable patients. The data used in the present study were derived from the Support and Consultation in Euthanasia in The Netherlands (SCEN) evaluation study. This study provided consultation reports and questionnaires filled out by the attending physicians from 3,337 consultations conducted by SCEN physicians in situations where a patient requested EAS. For this study we selected data on all ALS patients ( n  = 51), all heart failure patients ( n  = 61), and a random sample of 73 cancer patients. The most frequently reported reasons for unbearable suffering were: fear of suffocation (45%) and dependency (29%) in ALS patients, pain (46%) and fatigue (28%) in cancer patients, and dyspnea (52%) and dependency (37%) in heart failure patients. Somatic complaints were reported more frequently as a reason for EAS by cancer patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09–0.46] and heart failure patients [OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05–0.46] than by ALS patients. ALS patients should be helped in a timely fashion to cope with psychosocial symptoms, e.g., by informing them about the low risk of suffocation in the terminal phase and the possible means of preventing this.

Background Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) have been legally possible in the Netherlands since 2001, provided that statutory due care criteria are met, including: (a) voluntary and well-considered request; (b) unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement; (c) informing the patient; (d) lack of a reasonable alternative; (e) independent second physician’s opinion. ‘Unbearable suffering’ must have a medical basis, either somatic or psychiatric, but there is no requirement of limited life expectancy. All EAS cases must be reported and are scrutinised by regional review committees (RTE). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether any particular difficulties arise when the EAS due care criteria are applied to patients with an intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder. Methods The 416 case summaries available on the RTE website (2012–2016) were searched for intellectual disability (6) and autism spectrum disorder (3). Direct content analysis was used on these nine cases. Results Assessment of decisional capacity was mentioned in eight cases, but few details given; in two cases, there had been uncertainty or disagreement about capacity. Two patients had progressive somatic conditions. For most, suffering was due to an inability to cope with changing circumstances or increasing dependency; in several cases, suffering was described in terms of characteristics of living with an autism spectrum disorder, rather than an acquired medical condition. Some physicians struggled to understand the patient’s perspective. Treatment refusal was a common theme, leading physicians to conclude that EAS was the only remaining option. There was a lack of detail on social circumstances and how patients were informed about their prognosis. Conclusions Autonomy and decisional capacity are highly complex for patients with intellectual disabilities and difficult to assess; capacity tests in these cases did not appear sufficiently stringent. Assessment of suffering is particularly difficult for patients who have experienced life-long disability. The sometimes brief time frames and limited number of physician-patient meetings may not be sufficient to make a decision as serious as EAS. The Dutch EAS due care criteria are not easily applied to people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder, and do not appear to act as adequate safeguards.

The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia provides the most thorough overview of the ethical and legal issues raised by assisted suicide and euthanasia--as well as the most comprehensive argument against their legalization--ever published. In clear terms accessible to the general reader, Neil Gorsuch thoroughly assesses the strengths and weaknesses of leading contemporary ethical arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia. He explores evidence and case histories from the Netherlands and Oregon, where the practices have been legalized. He analyzes libertarian and autonomy-based arguments for legalization as well as the impact of key U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the debate. And he examines the history and evolution of laws and attitudes regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia in American society.