Do guidelines on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Dutch hospitals and nursing homes reflect the law? A content analysis.

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.

Physicians' labelling of end-of-life practices: a hypothetical case study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate why physicians label end-of-life acts as either 'euthanasia/ending of life' or 'alleviation of symptoms/palliative or terminal sedation', and to study the association of such labelling with intended reporting of these acts. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to a random, stratified sample of 2100 Dutch physicians (response: 55%). They were asked to label six hypothetical end-of-life cases: three 'standard' cases and three cases randomly selected (out of 47), that varied according to (1) type of medication, (2) physician's intention, (3) type of patient request, (4) patient's life expectancy and (5) time until death. We identified the extent to which characteristics of cases are associated with physician's labelling, with multilevel multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The characteristics that contributed most to labelling cases as 'euthanasia/ending of life' were the administration of muscle relaxants (99% of these cases were labelled as 'euthanasia/ending of life') or disproportional morphine (63% of these cases were labelled accordingly). Other important factors were an intention to hasten death (54%) and a life expectancy of several months (46%). Physicians were much more willing to report cases labelled as 'euthanasia' (87%) or 'ending of life' (56%) than other cases. CONCLUSIONS: Similar cases are not uniformly labelled. However, a physicians' label is strongly associated with their willingness to report their acts. Differences in how physicians label similar acts impede complete societal control. Further education and debate could enhance the level of agreement about what is physician-assisted dying, and thus should be reported, and what not.

Deciding about continuous deep sedation: physicians' perspectives: a focus group study.

Although guidelines restrict the use of continuous deep sedation to patients with refractory physical symptoms and a short life-expectancy, its use is not always restricted to these conditions. A focus group study of physicians was conducted to gain more insight in the arguments for and against the use of continuous deep sedation in several clinical situations. Arguments in favour of continuous deep sedation for patients with a longer life-expectancy were that the overall clinical situation is more relevant than life-expectancy alone, and that patients' wishes should be followed. Continuous deep sedation for patients with predominantly emotional/existential suffering was considered appropriate when physicians empathize with the suffering. Further, some physicians indicated that they may consider the use of sedation in the context of a euthanasia request. Arguments were that the option of continuous deep sedation is a better alternative; it may comfort some patients when their thoughts about potential future suffering become unbearable. Further, some considered continuous deep sedation as less burdening or a bother to perform. We conclude that physicians' decision-making about continuous deep sedation is characterized by balancing the interests of patients with their own feelings. Accordingly, the reasons for its use are not unambiguous and need further debate.

Dutch criteria of due care for physician-assisted dying in medical practice: a physician perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The Dutch Euthanasia Act (2002) states that euthanasia is not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with the statutory due care criteria. These criteria hold that: there should be a voluntary and well-considered request, the patient's suffering should be unbearable and hopeless, the patient should be informed about their situation, there are no reasonable alternatives, an independent physician should be consulted, and the method should be medically and technically appropriate. This study investigates whether physicians experience problems with these criteria in medical practice. METHODS: In 2006, questionnaires were sent to a random, stratified sample of 2100 Dutch physicians (response rate: 56%). Physicians were asked about problems in their decision-making related to requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide after enforcement of the 2002 Euthanasia Act. RESULTS: Of all physicians who had received a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide (75%), 25% had experienced problems in the decision-making with regard to at least one of the criteria of due care. Physicians who had experienced problems mostly indicated to have had problems related to evaluating whether or not the patient's suffering was unbearable and hopeless (79%) and whether or not the patient's request was voluntary or well considered (58%). DISCUSSION: Physicians in The Netherlands most frequently reported problems related to aspects in which they have to evaluate the patient's subjective perspective(s). However, it can be questioned whether placing emphasis on these subjective aspects is an adequate fulfilment of the duties imposed on physicians, as laid down in the Dutch Euthanasia Act.