To describe the content of practice guidelines on euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) and to compare differences between settings and guidelines developed before or after enactment of the euthanasia law in 2002 by means of a content analysis. Most guidelines stated that the attending physician is responsible for the decision to grant or refuse an EAS request. Due care criteria were described in the majority of guidelines, but aspects relevant for assessing these criteria were not always described. Half of the guidelines described the role of the nurse in the performance of euthanasia. Compared with hospital guidelines, nursing home guidelines were more often stricter than the law in excluding patients with dementia (30% vs 4%) and incompetent patients (25% vs 4%). As from 2002, the guidelines were less strict in categorically excluding patients groups (32% vs 64%) and in particular incompetent patients (10% vs 29%). Healthcare institutions should accurately state the boundaries of the law, also when they prefer to set stricter boundaries for their own institution. Only then can guidelines provide adequate support for physicians and nurses in the difficult EAS decision-making process.
- Care of the dying patient
- living wills/advance directives
- policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review cttes.
- suicide/assisted suicide
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Health.The study sponsors did not have any role in the design of the study, the data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The researchers are independent from the funders.
Competing interests None to declare.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications
- First prosecution of a Dutch doctor since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: what does the verdict mean?
- The role of advance euthanasia directives as an aid to communication and shared decision-making in dementia
- Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach
- Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide not meeting due care criteria in the Netherlands: a qualitative review of review committee judgements
- Dutch criteria of due care for physician-assisted dying in medical practice: a physician perspective
- AEDs are problematic, but Mrs A is a misleading case
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- Is this person with dementia (currently) competent to request euthanasia? A complicated and underexplored question
- Old problems in need of new (narrative) approaches? A young physician–bioethicist’s search for ethical guidance in the practice of physician-assisted dying in the Netherlands