New study casts doubt on effectiveness of euthanasia regulation in the Netherlands

Review committees struggle to judge if patients are eligible

Xavier Symons | Nov 9 2017 | comment

“Strict”, “scrupulous” and “rigid”. These are some of the words that have been used to describe the regulation of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the Netherlands. But how closely are doctors actually monitored?

A new study by researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggests that the Dutch euthanasia review committees (RTE) struggle to judge whether doctors have correctly applied PAS criteria, and are ultimately dependent on the transparency with which physicians report cases of PAS.

The study, authored by David Miller and Dr Scott Kim from the NIH’s bioethics department, analyses 33 cases from 2012-2016 in which the RTE committees deemed that doctors had failed to meet due care criteria.

The results are revealing. In light of the “open-ended” and “evolving” nature of the Dutch criteria for PAS, the RTE committees focus primarily on whether doctors have followed procedural regulations, rather than whether the patient was actually eligible for euthanasia.

“Evaluating patient’s [euthanasia] requests requires complicated judgements in implementing criteria that are intentionally open-ended, evolving and fraught with acknowledged interpretive difficulties. Our review suggests that the Dutch review system’s primary mode of handling this difficult is a trust-based system that focuses on the procedural thoroughness and professionalism of physicians”.

The study found that out of 33 cases reviewed, 22 failed to meet only the procedural due care criteria (i.e., due medical care and consulting an independent physician). “These criteria are more clearly operationalised than other criteria”, the authors observe.

In seven of the cases, the committee deemed that the consulting physician was not sufficiently independent from the PAS physician. In 14 of the cases, physicians were found not to have followed “due medical care”. The authors write that “this criterion was most commonly not met because physicians incorrectly used drugs, dosing regimens (too low), rout of administration (intramuscular instead of intravenous) or order of administration of EAS drugs (eg, paralytic before sedative).”

Even when substantive criteria were at issue, the authors write that “ the RTE’s focus was generally not on whether the physician made a ‘correct’ judgement, but on whether the physician followed a thorough process (ie, whether the physicians should have consulted specialists or evaluated the patient further, but not whether the patient should have received EAS)”.

In six of the cases, the RTE found that the PAS physician had not been thorough enough in applying the “unbearable suffering” criterion.

Xavier Symons is Deputy Editor of BioEdge, which is also published by New Media Foundation. He is doing a PhD in bioethics at Australian Catholic University in Melbourne. This article has been republished from BioEdge.

November 10, 2017

The mass shooting in Texas last Sunday has inevitably stoked the gun debate. Although the aftermath of such terrible events is witnessed worldwide, it is difficult for people outside the United States to understand the attachment of Americans to private gun ownership. However, our associate editor Zac Alstin has thought hard about this question and has come to a startling conclusion -- that America may need more guns, not fewer. Sheila Liaugminas for her part is grieved that a common expression of sympathy has been politicised.

For another perspective on untimely deaths check out the story we ran on Wednesday on opioids, which are now the top cause of accidental death for all Americans under 50, outstripping car crashes, HIV and guns. How does a boy grow into a young man who destroys himself, or other people? We have to answer that question, as well as control the drugs and guns.

And for inspiration, see Michael Cook's note about the deaths of two young boys in Sydney as a result of a driver losing control of her car -- and the marvellous forgiving attititude of a Muslim family who lost a child.

Among other articles: Shannon Roberts highlights how an Orthodox Patriarch inspired a baby boom; Peter Kopa writes passionately from Prague about the need to finally free ourselves from Marxism; and Jennifer Lahl gives a thorough run-down on the sordid truth about surrogacy contracts. Is the new Murder on the Orient Express is worth seeing? this review might help.