[Increasing independence of a resident in training: lessons in disciplinary law]. / Toenemende zelfstandigheid van een aios.

Objective To explore how the disciplinary board allocates responsibility between the resident in training and the supervisor. Design Case law analysis. Method All published disciplinary judgments containing the term 'resident in training' from January 1, 2010, to April 1, 2020 on www.tuchtrecht.overheid.nl were analyzed. Results 116 law cases involving 128 complaints were examined. The disciplinary boards' considerations could be distinguished into four groups: situational characteristics, the resident's competence, the extent and quality of supervision, and information provision. Conclusion The disciplinary boards allocates responsibility between the resident in training and the supervisor in the context of the specific complaint and situation. It is therefore important that the general rules and regulations regarding supervision of residents are clearly outlined and documented, including their momentary alignment. In addition, the hospital has a general responsibility to inform patients about the implications of training residents while providing healthcare.

[Cross-border healthcare: EU citizens as patients]. / Grensoverschrijdende zorg: EU-burgers als patiënt.

With the free movement of people within the European Union (EU), it occurs that EU citizens need healthcare in and different country, other than their country of origin. Identification of patients is important, and the EU is currently implementing a digital Patient Summary to provide physicians with essential information concerning an European patient. Physicians should be aware that the obligation concerning informed consent carries extra weight for patients with a language barrier. A professional interpreter can facilitate bridging this linguistic barrier. All patients who die within the Netherlands are subject to Dutch legislation on organ donation. The reimbursement of care is regulated within the EU by Regulations (No 883/2004 and No 987/2009) and the Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. In principle, unplanned care is always reimbursed, whereas planned clinical care requires permission from the patient's health insurer.

Ex Situ Perfusion of Hearts Donated After Euthanasia: A Promising Contribution to Heart Transplantation.

Organ donation after euthanasia is performed in an increasing number of countries. In this donation after circulatory death procedure, it has not been possible to donate the heart. Recent literature, however, reports positive results of heart donation after circulatory death. Therefore, patients who donate organs following euthanasia might be suitable candidates for heart donation. We want to confirm this assumption by sharing the results of 2 cases of heart donation following euthanasia with ex situ subnormothermic heart preservation. Our aim is to raise awareness of the potential of heart donation following euthanasia for both clinical transplantation and research. METHODS: The data of 2 consecutive heart donations following euthanasia were collected prospectively. Informed consent was obtained from the patients themselves for heart donation for research purposes. An acellular oxygenated subnormothermic machine perfusion strategy was used to preserve both donor hearts. Subsequently, the hearts were evaluated on a normothermic perfusion machine using a balloon in the left ventricle. RESULTS: Heart donation following euthanasia was feasible without significant changes in existing retrieval protocols. Duration of machine perfusion preservation was 408 and 432 minutes, for heart 1 and 2, respectively. For heart 1, developed pressure (Pdev) was 119 mm Hg, maximal rate of pressure rise (dP/dtmax), and fall (dP/dtmin) were 1524 mm Hg/s and -1057 mm Hg/s, respectively. For heart 2, Pdev was 142 mm Hg, dP/dtmax was 1098 mm Hg/s, and dP/dtmin was -802 mm Hg/s. CONCLUSIONS: Hearts donated following euthanasia are highly valuable for research purposes and can have sufficient quality to be transplanted. With the implementation of ex situ heart perfusion, patients who are to donate their organs following euthanasia should also be able to donate their hearts. The complex combination of euthanasia and heart donation is ethically sound and surgically feasible and can contribute to shortening the heart transplant waiting list.

Euthanasia through living organ donation: Ethical, legal, and medical challenges.

Euthanasia is categorically prohibited in almost all countries throughout the world. In Belgium and the Netherlands, combining euthanasia and subsequent organ donation in a so-called donation after circulatory-death (DCD) procedure is feasible on legal and medical grounds, and is increasingly gaining social and ethical acceptance. However, heart transplantation after DCD is currently not performed in Belgium and the Netherlands after euthanasia due to concerns surrounding the prolonged warm ischemia time associated with DCD and its effect on subsequent heart function. A number of patients who undergo euthanasia explicitly express their wish to donate their organs in a "living organ donation" procedure, which then causes death. Assuming that euthanasia is permitted, as expressed in Dutch and Belgian legislation, this exploratory article addresses whether it is legally and ethically sound to donate organs, especially the heart, as a living donor and to perform euthanasia in the same procedure in a patient who fulfills the due diligence requirements for euthanasia. Organ donation euthanasia (ODE) would then cause death by the associated surgical procedure, and in addition would improve the quality of the other donated organs, a procedure that would fully respect the patient's autonomy.