Article Text

PDF
Judgement of suffering in the case of a euthanasia request in The Netherlands
  1. J A C Rietjens1,
  2. D G van Tol2,
  3. M Schermer1,
  4. A van der Heide1
  1. 1
    Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2
    University Medical CenterGroningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  1. Dr J A C Rietjens, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, The Netherlands; j.rietjens{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Introduction: In The Netherlands, physicians have to be convinced that the patient suffers unbearably and hopelessly before granting a request for euthanasia. The extent to which general practitioners (GPs), consulted physicians and members of the euthanasia review committees judge this criterion similarly was evaluated.

Methods: 300 GPs, 150 consultants and 27 members of review committees were sent a questionnaire with patient descriptions. Besides a “standard case” of a patient with physical suffering and limited life expectancy, the descriptions included cases in which the request was mainly rooted in psychosocial or existential suffering, such as fear of future suffering or dependency. For each case, respondents were asked whether they recognised the case from their own practice and whether they considered the suffering to be unbearable.

Results: The cases were recognisable for almost all respondents. For the “standard case” nearly all respondents were convinced that the patient suffered unbearably. For the other cases, GPs thought the suffering was unbearable less often (2–49%) than consultants (25–79%) and members of the euthanasia review committees (24–88%). In each group, the suffering of patients with early dementia and patients who were “tired of living” was least often considered to be unbearable.

Conclusions: When non-physical aspects of suffering are central in a euthanasia request, there is variance between and within GPs, consultants and members of the euthanasia committees in their judgement of the patient’s suffering. Possible explanations could be differences in their roles in the decision-making process, differences in experience with evaluating a euthanasia request, or differences in views regarding the permissibility of euthanasia.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding: This paper was funded by a grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • The concise argument
    Søren Holm