In a recent Dutch euthanasia case, a woman underwent euthanasia on the basis of an advance directive, having first been sedated without her knowledge and then restrained by members of her family while the euthanasia was administered. This article considers some implications of the criminal court’s acquittal of the doctor who performed the euthanasia. Supporters of advance euthanasia directives have welcomed the judgement as providing a clarification of the law, especially with regard to the admissibility of contextual evidence in interpreting advance euthanasia directives, but suggested that the law regarding advance euthanasia directives should be further relaxed to remove the requirement of current suffering and that an unfortunate consequence of the prosecution is that it is likely to deter doctors from performing euthanasia even in more straightforward cases. This article argues that the court’s endorsement of the use of contextual evidence is problematic, that the case for prioritising prior decisions over current interests has not been advanced by the discussion surrounding this case and that worries about the alleged deterrent effect are not well founded.
- suicide/assisted suicide
- living wills/advance directives
- criminal law
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.
Contributors JH is the sole contributor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- First prosecution of a Dutch doctor since the Euthanasia Act of 2002: what does the verdict mean?
- Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications
- AEDs are problematic, but Mrs A is a misleading case
- Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach
- Ethics of care challenge to advance directives for dementia patients
- Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns
- Response to: ‘Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns’ by Jongsma et al
- The role of advance euthanasia directives as an aid to communication and shared decision-making in dementia
- Is this person with dementia (currently) competent to request euthanasia? A complicated and underexplored question
- Tom Buller on the principle of precedent autonomy and the relation between critical and experiential interests