Death by request in The Netherlands: facts, the legal context and effects on physicians, patients and families

Exploring doctors' reasons for not granting a request for euthanasia: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

In a growing number of jurisdictions, physician-assisted death (PAD) is now an established part of medical care. Although PAD is allowed under certain criteria in The Netherlands, physicians can always refuse a request. The Euthanasia Expertise Centre (EEC) offers PAD to patients whose request was declined in circumstances where their own physician could have satisfied the legal criteria. The number of requests reaching EEC has increased, suggesting the threshold for treating physicians to refer patients to EEC has become lower.

AIM

To explore the reasons of physicians for not granting a request for PAD and/or referring a patient to EEC, and any needs physicians may have in handling requests for PAD.

DESIGN & SETTING

Survey and interviews among Dutch physicians in The Netherlands.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to 500 physicians who declined a request for PAD and whose patient subsequently requested PAD at EEC. This was followed by a qualitative study, in which in-depth interviews were held with 21 of the physicians who responded to the survey.

RESULTS

Doctors were identified as those who had objections on principle, or with other reasons for refusing a request for PAD and/or to refer the patient to EEC. These reasons were mostly related to concerns about complying with the due care criteria for PAD, or to difficulties with PAD in specific patient groups. In these cases they often valued support from another healthcare professional.

CONCLUSION

For patients of physicians with objections on principle against PAD, EEC offered a good solution. Doctors who struggle with whether they can comply with the legal criteria might benefit from peer support.

Experiences and views of Dutch general practitioners regarding physician-assisted death for patients suffering from severe mental illness: a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, physician-assisted death (PAD) is allowed under certain conditions. Patients who suffer from mental illnesses are not excluded from this practice. In 2018, general practitioners (GPs) performed 20 out of a total of 67 cases of EAS for psychiatric suffering.

OBJECTIVE

More insight into GPs' experiences and views with regard to PAD in psychiatry.

DESIGN

The data for this study were obtained through a survey amongst 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs and by in-depth interviews with 20 Dutch GPs.

SETTING

A survey study and in-depth interviews.

SUBJECTS

Dutch GPs.

RESULTS

86 out of 101 GPs found it conceivable to perform EAS in case of somatic disease, and 51 out of 104 GPs found it conceivable in the case a patient suffered from a mental illness only. The main reason given for refusing an PAD request was that the criteria of due care were not met. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide. Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.

CONCLUSION

GPs are less likely to perform PAD for suffering from a mental illness, compared to somatic suffering. Some GPs apply an extra criterion of 'life-expectancy' in case of PAD for suffering from a mental illness. Refusing PAD based on a long life expectancy keeps open the possibility of recovery, but may also just prolong the suffering and add to the unbearableness of it.KEY POINTSCurrently, there is no qualitative research on what the views are of general practitioners regarding the subject of physician-assisted death (PAD) for patients suffering from severe mental disorders.General practitioners are less likely to consider a request for physician-assisted death by a patient suffering from a psychiatric disorder, compared to somatic suffering. Reasons for supporting psychiatric PAD related to responsibility, self-determination, compassion, fairness, and preventing suicide.Reasons for not supporting psychiatric PAD were related to the scope of medicine, a perceived lack of experience, uncertainties regarding the criteria of due care and life-expectancy.Significance for the reader: Although allowed in the Netherlands, PAD in case of severe mental suffering remains a controversial topic. We need in-depth information about the actual practice of it to have an informed debate with regard to this subject.

The involvement of family in the Dutch practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND

Family members do not have an official position in the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (EAS) in the Netherlands according to statutory regulations and related guidelines. However, recent empirical findings on the influence of family members on EAS decision-making raise practical and ethical questions. Therefore, the aim of this review is to explore how family members are involved in the Dutch practice of EAS according to empirical research, and to map out themes that could serve as a starting point for further empirical and ethical inquiry.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review was performed. The databases Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Emcare were searched to identify empirical studies describing any aspect of the involvement of family members before, during and after EAS in the Netherlands from 1980 till 2018. Thematic analysis was chosen as method to synthesize the quantitative and qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies were identified. Only 14 studies had family members themselves as study participants. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis. 1) Family-related reasons (not) to request EAS. 2) Roles and responsibilities of family members during EAS decision-making and performance. 3) Families' experiences and grief after EAS. 4) Family and 'the good euthanasia death' according to Dutch physicians.

CONCLUSION

Family members seem to be active participants in EAS decision-making, which goes hand in hand with ambivalent feelings and experiences. Considerations about family members and the social context appear to be very important for patients and physicians when they request or grant a request for EAS. Although further empirical research is needed to assess the depth and generalizability of the results, this review provides a new perspective on EAS decision-making and challenges the Dutch ethical-legal framework of EAS. Euthanasia decision-making is typically framed in the patient-physician dyad, while a patient-physician-family triad seems more appropriate to describe what happens in clinical practice. This perspective raises questions about the interpretation of autonomy, the origins of suffering underlying requests for EAS, and the responsibilities of physicians during EAS decision-making.

Family Caregivers' Reflections on Experiences of Assisted Suicide in Switzerland: A Qualitative Interview Study

CONTEXT

Thousands of family members worldwide are annually involved in assisted dying. Family participation in assisted dying has rarely been investigated and families' needs typically are not considered in assisted dying legislation and clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore family caregivers' reflections on experiences of assisted suicide in Switzerland.

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative interview study conducted in the Italian- and French-speaking regions of Switzerland. Interpretation and analysis were performed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight close relatives and family carers of 18 patients who died by assisted suicide in Switzerland were interviewed. Family members perceived their involvement in assisted suicide as characterized by five phases; 1) contemplation, 2) gaining acceptance, 3) gaining permission, 4) organization, and 5) aftermath. Families can participate in these phases at diverse levels and with varying degrees of involvement. Important triggers for families and patients for transition between phases include patients' experiences of their life-threatening illnesses and related treatments, their increasing awareness of approaching death, and family member recognition of their loved one's unbearable suffering. Participating in assisted suicide created further demanding tasks for families in addition to their role of caregivers.

CONCLUSION

Families appeared to be involved in the preparation of assisted suicide along with patients, irrespective of their personal values regarding assisted dying. Support for family members is essential if they are involved in tasks preparatory to assisted suicide. Clinical guidelines and policies concerning assisted dying should acknowledge and address family needs.

Fear of Life, Fear of Death, and Fear of Causing Death: How Legislative Changes on Assisted Dying Are Doomed to Fail

Fear of life, fear of death, and fear of causing death form a combination that prevents reasoned changes in laws concerning end-of-life situations. This is shown systematically in this article using the methods of conceptual analysis. Prevalent fears are explicated and interpreted to see how their meanings differ depending on the chosen normative stance. When the meanings have been clarified, the impact of the fears on the motivations and justifications of potential legislative reforms are assessed. Two main normative stances are evoked. The first makes an appeal to individual self-determination, or autonomy, and the second to the traditional professional ethics of physicians. These views partly share qualifying elements, including incurability and irreversibility of the patient’s medical condition, proximity of death, the unbearable nature of suffering, and issues of voluntariness further shade the matter. The conclusion is that although many motives to change end-of-life laws are admirable, they are partly contradictory, as are calls for autonomy and appeals to professional ethics; to a degree that good, principled legislative solutions remain improbable in the foreseeable future.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide not meeting due care criteria in the Netherlands: a qualitative review of review committee judgements

ObjectivesTo assess how Dutch regional euthanasia review committees (RTE) apply the euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) due care criteria in cases where the criteria are judged not to have been met ('due care not met' (DCNM)) and to evaluate how the criteria function to set limits in Dutch EAS practice.

DESIGN

A qualitative review using directed content analysis of DCNM cases in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2016 published on the RTE website (https://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/) as of 31 January 2017.

RESULTS

Of 33 DCNM cases identified (occurring 2012-2016), 32 cases (97%) were published online and included in the analysis. 22 cases (69%) violated only procedural criteria, relating to improper medication administration or inadequate physician consultation. 10 cases (31%) failed to meet substantive criteria, with the most common violation involving the no reasonable alternative (to EAS) criterion (seven cases). Most substantive cases involved controversial elements, such as EAS for psychiatric disorders or 'tired of life', in incapacitated patients or by physicians from advocacy organisations. Even in substantive criteria cases, the RTE's focus was procedural. The cases were more about unorthodox, unprofessional or overconfident physician behaviours and not whether patients should have received EAS. However, in some cases, physicians knowingly pushed the limits of EAS law. Physicians from euthanasia advocacy organisations were over-represented in substantive criteria cases. Trained EAS consultants tended to agree with or facilitate EAS in DCNM cases. Physicians and families had difficulty applying ambiguous advance directives of incapacitated patients.

CONCLUSION

As a retrospective review of physician self-reported data, the Dutch RTEs do not focus on whether patients should have received EAS, but instead primarily gauge whether doctors conducted EAS in a thorough, professional manner. To what extent this constitutes enforcement of strict safeguards, especially when cases contain controversial features, is not clear.

Can physicians conceive of performing euthanasia in case of psychiatric disease, dementia or being tired of living?

BACKGROUND

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) in patients with psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living (without severe morbidity) is highly controversial. Although such cases can fall under the Dutch Euthanasia Act, Dutch physicians seem reluctant to perform EAS, and it is not clear whether or not physicians reject the possibility of EAS in these cases.

AIM

To determine whether physicians can conceive of granting requests for EAS in patients with cancer, another physical disease, psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living, and to evaluate whether physician characteristics are associated with conceivability. A cross-sectional study (survey) was conducted among 2269 Dutch general practitioners, elderly care physicians and clinical specialists.

RESULTS

The response rate was 64% (n=1456). Most physicians found it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS in a patient with cancer or another physical disease (85% and 82%). Less than half of the physicians found this conceivable in patients with psychiatric disease (34%), early-stage dementia (40%), advanced dementia (29-33%) or tired of living (27%). General practitioners were most likely to find it conceivable that they would perform EAS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a minority of Dutch physicians find it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS from a patient with psychiatric disease, dementia or a patient who is tired of living. For physicians who find EAS inconceivable in these cases, legal arguments and personal moral objections both probably play a role.

The Assisted Dying Bill and the role of the physician

This article explores the role of the physician in the Assisted Dying Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. The Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson and Others has alerted Parliament to the possibility that the current prohibition against assisted suicide may breach Article 8 of the European Convention in relation to the right to choose how to end one's life. In this article, the role of healthcare professionals in the proposed legalisation of physician-assisted suicide is examined, together with consideration of key ethical concerns over who might be permitted to access assisted dying. Whether the proposed law presents an ethically sound alternative to the current prohibition against assisting in suicide is not clear, but Parliament must now respond in order to address human rights issues and the call to legalise medically assisted suicide.

Questions and answers on the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care: experiment? Prototype? : "Eu-euthanasia": the close historical, and evidently synergistic, relationship between palliative care and euthanasia in Belgium: an interview with a doctor involved in the early development of both and two of his successors

This article analyses domestic and foreign reactions to a 2008 report in the British Medical Journal on the complementary and, as argued, synergistic relationship between palliative care and euthanasia in Belgium. The earliest initiators of palliative care in Belgium in the late 1970s held the view that access to proper palliative care was a precondition for euthanasia to be acceptable and that euthanasia and palliative care could, and should, develop together. Advocates of euthanasia including author Jan Bernheim, independent from but together with British expatriates, were among the founders of what was probably the first palliative care service in Europe outside of the United Kingdom. In what has become known as the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care, euthanasia is an available option, also at the end of a palliative care pathway. This approach became the majority view among the wider Belgian public, palliative care workers, other health professionals, and legislators. The legal regulation of euthanasia in 2002 was preceded and followed by a considerable expansion of palliative care services. It is argued that this synergistic development was made possible by public confidence in the health care system and widespread progressive social attitudes that gave rise to a high level of community support for both palliative care and euthanasia. The Belgian model of so-called integral end-of-life care is continuing to evolve, with constant scrutiny of practice and improvements to procedures. It still exhibits several imperfections, for which some solutions are being developed. This article analyses this model by way of answers to a series of questions posed by Journal of Bioethical Inquiry consulting editor Michael Ashby to the Belgian authors.

Physician-assisted dying and psychiatry: recent developments in The Netherlands

The Netherlands was one of the first countries in the world to establish a legal framework for physician-assisted dying (PAD). In this article, we provide an overview of the public, political, legal, and medical debates on physician-assisted dying in The Netherlands, focusing on the role of psychiatry and mental illness. The number of individuals with chronic mental illness requesting PAD has been relatively small (although the number can be expected to increase because of the activities of various civic organizations advocating the right to die) and Dutch psychiatrists have been extremely reluctant to respond to such requests. Nevertheless, mental conditions have been central to the public debate on PAD by helping to define the nature and limits of current legislation and professional practice. Although a few Dutch psychiatrists have campaigned to increase the involvement of psychiatrists and many support PAD in principle, the majority has been hesitant to engage in PAD despite increasing public pressure.

Perspectives of decision-making in requests for euthanasia: a qualitative research among patients, relatives and treating physicians in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Euthanasia has been legally performed in the Netherlands since 2002. Respect for patient's autonomy is the underpinning ethical principal. However, patients have no right to euthanasia, and physicians have no obligation to provide it. Although over 3000 cases are conducted per year in the Netherlands, there is little known about how decision-making occurs and no guidance to support this difficult aspect of clinical practice.

AIM

To explore the decision-making process in cases where patients request euthanasia and understand the different themes relevant to optimise this decision-making process.

DESIGN

A qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with patients making explicit requests for euthanasia, most-involved relative(s) and treating physician.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Thirty-two cases, 31 relatives and 28 treating physicians. Settings were patients' and relatives' homes and physicians' offices.

RESULTS

Five main themes emerged: (1) initiation of sharing views and values about euthanasia, (2) building relationships as part of the negotiation, (3) fulfilling legal requirements, (4) detailed work of preparing and performing euthanasia and (5) aftercare and closing.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient's request for euthanasia entails a complex process that demands emotional work by all participants. It is characterised by an intensive period of sharing information, relationship building and negotiation in order to reach agreement. We hypothesise that making decisions about euthanasia demands a proactive approach towards participants' preferences and values regarding end of life, towards the needs of relatives, towards the burden placed on physicians and a careful attention to shared decision-making. Future research should address the communicational skills professionals require for such complex decision-making.

Withdrawal of nonfutile life support after attempted suicide

End-of-life decision making is fraught with ethical challenges. Withholding or withdrawing life support therapy is widely considered ethical in patients with high treatment burden, poor premorbid status, or significant projected disability even when such treatment is not "futile." Whether such withdrawal of therapy in the aftermath of attempted suicide is ethical is not well established in the literature. We provide a clinical vignette and propose criteria under which such withdrawal would be ethical. We suggest that it is appropriate to withdraw life support, regardless of the cause of the critical illness or disability, when the following criteria are met: (1) Surrogates request withdrawal of care and the adequacy of surrogates is confirmed, (2) an external reasonability standard is met, (3) passage of time, perhaps 72 hours, to allow certainty regarding the patient's wishes, and (4) psychiatric morbidity should be considered as grounds for withdrawal only in truly treatment-refractory cases. Fundamentally, we believe the question to ask is, "If this were not an attempted suicide, would a request to withdraw care be reasonable?" We believe that under these circumstances, such withdrawal of life support, even in an individual who has attempted suicide, does not constitute physician assistance with suicide and is distinct from physician aid-in-dying in several important respects.