Two decades of research on euthanasia from the Netherlands. What have we learnt and what questions remain?
Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts. In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.
|Keywords||Euthanasia, The Netherlands|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3, hdl.handle.net/1765/24235|
Rietjens, J.A.C., van der Maas, P.J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D., van Delden, J.J.M., & van der Heide, A.. (2009). Two decades of research on euthanasia from the Netherlands. What have we learnt and what questions remain?. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 6(3), 271–283. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3