Rurik Löfmark, Tore Nilstun, Colleen Cartwright, Susanne Fische, Agnes van der Heide, Freddy Mortier, Michael Norup, Lorenzo Simonato and Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen for the EURELD Consortium
The book strives for as complete and dispassionate a description of the situation as possible and covers in detail: the substantive law applicable to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding and withdrawing treatment, use of pain relief in potentially lethal doses, terminal sedation, and termination of life without a request (in particular in the case of newborn babies); the process of legal development that has led to the current state of the law; the system of legal control and its operation in practice; and, the results of empirical research concerning actual medical practice.
A national survey of 3733 UK doctors reporting on the care of 2923 people who had died under their care is reported here. Results show that there was no time to make an ‘end-of-life decision’ (deciding to provide, withdraw or withhold treatment) for 8.5% of those reporting deaths. A further 55.2% reported decisions which they estimated would not hasten death and 28.9% reported decisions they had expected to hasten death. A further 7.4% reported deaths where they had to some degree intended to hasten death. Where patients or someone else had made a request for a hastened death, doctors were more likely to report expecting or at least partly intending to hasten death. Doctors usually made these decisions in consultation with colleagues, relatives and, where feasible, with patients.
Around a third of doctors say they have given drugs to terminally ill patients or withdrawn treatment, knowing or intending that it would shorten their life. A study of doctors in charge of the last hours of almost 3,000 people finds decisions almost always have to be made on whether to give drugs to relieve pain that could shorten life and whether to continue resuscitation and artificial feeding. In 211 cases (7.4%), doctors say they gave drugs or stopped treatment to speed the patient's death. In 825 cases (28.9%), doctors made a decision on treatment that they knew would probably or certainly hasten death. One in 10 patients asked their doctor to help them die faster. What doctors do varies according to their religious beliefs, according to Prof Clive Seale, who carried out the research. But, he said, there was no evidence of a "slippery slope": that deaths of the most vulnerable, such as very elderly women and those with dementia, are being hastened more than others.
Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.
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. 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.
In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalized in 2002, we conducted a follow-up study in 2007 to two largescale nationwide surveys on medical end-of-life practices that had been conducted in 1998 and 2001. This follow-up study enabled us to investigate differences in the frequency and characteristics of these practices before and after the enactment of the law.
A retired doctor has been struck off after giving excessively high doses of morphine to 18 dying patients. A disciplinary panel found that former County Durham GP Dr Howard Martin had not acted negligently but had "violated the rights of the terminally ill". He was cleared of murdering three of his patients five years ago. But he has been struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for "completely unacceptable" treatment of some patients.
Medical end-of-life decisions are frequent in minors in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas parents were involved in most end-of-life decisions, the patients themselves were involved much less frequently, even when the ending of their lives was intended. At the time of decision making, patients were often comatose or the physicians deemed them incompetent or too young to be involved.
Dying Auckland GP John Pollock says he will be "long gone" by the time the fiery debate on euthanasia has reached a resolution. Pollock, 61, ignited the issue last month when he went public calling for a review of the law which prohibits euthanasia for dying and suffering Kiwis. Pollock, who is suffering from metastatic melanoma, is now shying away from the spotlight, not wanting to spend his final days in a glare of publicity. But, he says, he has done what he set out to do - start an open and vigorous debate on a subject which has been more-or-less taboo up until now. "My part in all this is over," says Pollock. "I set out to ignite debate, and the fire has now been lit - in fact it's blazing. I'm not going to be the centrepiece for the fight. It's going to take donkey's years and I'll be long gone." The key, he says, is to get the medical profession on board.
Rechtsonzekerheid voor artsen bij uitvoering euthanasie onacceptabel Artsen houden zich goed aan de euthanasiewet, zo blijkt uit de tweede evaluatie van deze wet. Maar zij worden geconfronteerd met rechtsonzekerheid over het toetsingskader. Daarom steunt de KNMG de aanbeveling van een code of practice voor de toetsingscommissies en dringt zij aan op duidelijkheid over de waarde van de schriftelijke wilsverklaring bij wilsonbekwame patiënten. De KNMG reageert hiermee op de tweede evaluatie van de Wet toetsing levensbeëindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding (Wtl).
Abstract Objectives Potentially life-shortening medical end-of-life practices (end-of-life decisions (ELDs)) remain subject to conceptual vagueness. This study evaluates how physicians label these practices by examining which of their own practices (described according to the precise act, the intention, the presence of an explicit patient request and the self-estimated degree of life shortening) they label as euthanasia or sedation. Methods We conducted a large stratified random sample of death certificates from 2007 (N=6927). The physicians named on the death certificate were approached by means of a postal questionnaire asking about ELDs made in each case and asked to choose the most appropriate label to describe the ELD. Response rate was 58.4%. Results In the vast majority of practices labelled as euthanasia, the self-reported actions of the physicians corresponded with the definition in the Belgian euthanasia legislation; practices labelled as palliative or terminal sedation lac