Article Text
Abstract
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.
- Euthanasia (Active voluntary)
- Advance Directives
- Dementia
- Legal Case
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors ECAA and SvdV made substantial contributions to the conception of the work, and/or the interpretation of data. Both authors contributed to drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. ECAA and SvdV approved the final version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding This study was funded by NVVE.
Competing interests ECAA and SvdV receive funding from the Dutch Association for Voluntary End of Life (NVVE).
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement No data are available.
Other content recommended for you
- Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach
- 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
- Do guidelines on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Dutch hospitals and nursing homes reflect the law? A content analysis
- Can physicians conceive of performing euthanasia in case of psychiatric disease, dementia or being tired of living?
- AEDs are problematic, but Mrs A is a misleading case
- Response to: ‘Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns’ by Jongsma et al
- Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns