Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Three Research Reports of 1990, 1995 and 2001, and Their Interpretations

  • Chapter
Euthanasia in the Netherlands

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 20))

  • 489 Accesses

Abstract

The Dutch understanding of euthanasia is said to be marked by its precision. Unlike other countries that distinguish between active and passive euthanasia, between direct and indirect euthanasia, and between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, the Dutch definition of the term is exact: the intentional taking of someone’s life at his or her explicit request. According to the law, only a competent patient’s request can be accepted. Consequently:

  1. a.

    What is termed “euthanasia” in the Netherlands is called “active euthanasia” in other parts of the world. In the Dutch conception, euthanasia is active by definition and there is no need to specify the act by the term “active,” as other countries do.

  2. b.

    All other kinds of end-of-life (“terminal”) care bear other names. Thus, for instance, withdrawal of treatment is not considered euthanasia. Elsewhere it is termed “passive euthanasia.” In the Netherlands, this term is deemed illogical and useless insofar as passive euthanasia is self-contradictory because it concerns the omission of a treatment to which the patient has not consented.1 Within the law, the difference between acting and refraining from acting has no particular relevance, and such a legal consideration takes precedence over the psychological experience of the difference. The prevailing Dutch perspective regards any treatment that has no clear medical benefit for the patient as futile. The argument is that no patient should be subjected to useless medical interventions, or that these treatments should be offered as an option to patients. In a leading test case, a Dutch court ruled that contrary to the wishes of the next of kin, a hospital was not obliged to return an 80-year-old cancer patient to intensive care when his condition was deteriorating.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. G.K. Kimsma and E. van Leeuwen, “Dutch Euthanasia: Background, Practice, and Present Justifications,” Cambridge Q. of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 2 (1993), p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. Tony Sheldon, “Doctors Not Obliged to Carry Out Treatment They Think ‘Futile’,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 319 (October 23, 1999), at 1088.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The ethical concept of double effect is used to justify medical treatment designed to relieve suffering where death is an unintended, though foreseeable, consequence. The doctrine is based on two basic presuppositions: (1) the doctor’s intention is to alleviate suffering; (2) the treatment must be proportional to the illness. The doctrine applies if the desired outcome is judged to be “good” (e.g. relief of suffering); the “bad” outcome (e.g. death of patient) is not intended; the “good” outcome is not achieved by means of the “bad,” and the “good” outcome outweighs the “bad.” For further discussion on the double effect doctrine, see R. Cohen-Almagor, “Language and Reality at the End of Life,” The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Fall 2000): 267–278; Daniel P. Sulmasy and Edmund D. Pellegrino, “The Rule of Double Effect,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 159 (March 22, 1999): 545–550; Len Doyal, “The Moral Character of Clinicians or the Best Interests of Patients?,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 318 (May 29, 1999): 1432–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Johan Legemaate, “Twenty-Five Years of Dutch Experience and Policy on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: An Overview,” in David C. Thomasma, Thomasine Kimbrough-Kushner, Gerrit K. Kimsma, and Chris Ciesielski-Carlucci (eds.), Asking to Die (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), p. 20; Gerrit K. Kimsma, “Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands,” in Medizin, Ethik, Recht (1994): 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The Medical Association Executive Board emphasized that there are only limited possibilities for verifying whether suffering is unbearable and without prospect of improvement. In any case, the Board considered it the doctor’s task to investigate whether there are medical or social alternatives that could make the patient’s suffering bearable. John Griffiths, Alex Bood and Heleen Weyers, Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998), p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  6. John Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” The Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 108 (January 1992), p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Royal Dutch Medical Association’s refinements of the 1984 Guidelines (August 25, 1995). Cf. Marlise Simons, “Dutch doctors to tighten rules on mercy killings,” The New York Times (September 11, 1995), p. A3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Marcia Angell’s Editorial, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands — Good News or Bad?,” New Eng. J. of Medicine, Vol. 335, No. 22 (November 28, 1996); Adriaan Jacobovits, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” Washington Post (January 23, 1997), p. A16; General Health Council, “A Proposal of Advice Concerning Careful Requirements in the Performance of Euthanasia” (The Hague, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, Health Policy Monographs (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Paul J. van der Maas, Gerrit van der Wal, Ilinka Haverkate et al, “Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995,” New Eng. J. of Med., Vol. 335, No. 22 (November 28, 1996): 1699–1705; B.D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, A. van der Heide, D. Koper, I. Keij-Deerenberg, J.A.C. Rietjens, M.L. Rurup, A.M. Vrakking, J.J. Georges, M.T. Muller, G. van der Wal, P.J. van der Maas, “Euthanasia and Other End-of-life Decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001,” Lancet, Vol. 362 (August 2, 2003): 395–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. For further discussion, see Johannes J.M. van Delden et al., “Deciding Not to Resuscitate in Dutch Hospitals,” J. of Medical Ethics, Vol. 19 (1993): 200–205; Tony Sheldon, “Euthanasia Law Does Not End Debate in the Netherlands,” BMJ, Vol. 307 (December 11, 1993): 1511–1512; Henk Jochemsen, “Euthanasia in Holland: An Ethical Critique of the New Law,” J. of Medical Ethics, Vol. 20 (1994): 212–217; Chris Ciesielski-Carlucci and Gerrit Kimsma, “The Impact of Reporting Cases of Euthanasia in Holland: A Patient and Family Perspective,” Bioethics, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1994): 151–158; J.K.M. Gevers, “Physician Assisted Suicide: New Developments in the Netherlands,” Bioethics, Vol. 9, No. 3/4 (1995): 309–312.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, op. cit., p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B.D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., “Euthanasia and Other End-of-life Decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001,” op. cit., p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gerrit van der Wal and Paul J. van der Maas, “Empirical Research on Euthanasia and Other Medical End-of-Life Decisions and the Euthanasia Notification Procedure,” in David C. Thomasma, Thomasine Kimbrough-Kushner, Gerrit K. Kimsma, and Chris Ciesielski-Carlucci (eds.), Asking to Die, op. cit., p. 171. See also Bill Mettyear, “advocating legalising voluntary euthanasia” (February 1997), http://www.on.net/clients/saves/South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society. In his comments on the first draft of this study, van der Maas wrote that in 1990 the decision had been discussed with a patient in 46% of the cases and in 14% there had been an expressed wish. Because explicit request is defined very strictly in the Dutch studies, these were not counted as euthanasia on request. Van der Maas noted an interesting comparison: Replication studies in Australia and Belgium both found frequencies over 3% for ending of life without explicit request. He estimated the number of active cases involving ending of life among newborns in the Netherlands to be 10–15 cases per year. Personal communication on September 18, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. B.D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., “Euthanasia and Other End-of-life Decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001,” op. cit., p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, op. cit., p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, Asking to Die Ibid., p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B.D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., “Euthanasia and Other End-of-life Decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001,” op. cit., p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  20. In another study among family doctors, one quarter of the physicians said that they did not ask for a second opinion before administering euthanasia or assisted suicide, and 12% of the GPs had no consultation with any professional health worker. Cf. G. van der Wal, J. Th. M. van Eijk, H.J.J. Leenen and C. Spreeuwenberg, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. II. Do Dutch Family Doctors Act Prudently?,” Family Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992), p. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, op. cit., p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, Family Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) Ibid, p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Henk A.M.J. ten Have, “Euthanasia: The Dutch Experience,” Annals de la Real Academia Nacional de Medicina, Tomo CXII (Madrid, 1995), p. 429.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Remmelink Commission, Rapport Medische Beslissingen Rond het Levenseinde (The Hague: SDU, 1991), p. 37. See also Henk A.M.J. ten Have, “Euthanasia: The Dutch Experience,” Annals de la Real Academia National de Medicina, Tomo CXII (Madrid, 1995), p. 429. In his comments on the first draft of this study, Leenen wrote that the proposal of the Remmelink Commission was rejected by nearly all the Dutch commentators and also by the government. Letter dated July 25, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henk A.M.J. ten Have, “Euthanasia: The Dutch Experience,” Annals de la Real Academia National de Medicina, Tomo CXII (Madrid, 1995): 429–430.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See G.A. den Hartogh, “Self-determination and Compassion in the Dutch Euthanasia-debate,” Rekenschap, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1992), p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gerrit van der Wal and Robert J.M. Dillmann, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 308 (1994): 1346–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Arie J.G. van der Arend provides data that refute this contention. Cf. “An Ethical Perspective on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands from a Nursing Point of View,” Nursing Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1998), at 313. See also idem, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands: Clarifying the Practice and the Nurse’s Role,” Int. Nurs. Rev., Vol. 45, No. 5 (1998), esp. p. 148; Ada van de Scheur and Arie van der Arend, “The Role of Nurses in Euthanasia: A Dutch Study,” Nursing Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 6 (1998), esp. pp. 505–506.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gerrit van der Wal and Robert J.M. Dillmann, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” op. cit.: 1346–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Margaret P. Battin, The Least Worst Death (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), at 132–133. See also Pieter V. Admiral, “Justifiable Euthanasia,” Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Spring 1988): 361–370; H.M. Kuitert, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: A Practice and Its Justification,” lecture delivered at the First World Congress of Bioethics (Amsterdam, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  31. South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Fact Sheet 17 (February 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Herbert Hendin, Chris Rutenfrans and Zbigniew Zylicz, “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” JAMA, Vol. 277, No. 21 (June 4, 1997), p. 1721. Van der Maas et al object to combining different categories of actions at the end-of-life. Cf. Johannes J.M. van Delden, Loes Pijnenborg and Paul J. van der Maas, “Dances with Data,” Bioethics, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1993): 323–329, at 325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Henk Jochemsen and John Keown, “Voluntary Euthanasia under Control? Further Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands,” Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 25 (1999): 16–21, at 19–20, reprinted in brief in Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 14 (Spring 1999), at 474. See also J. Keown, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope?,” Notre Dame J. of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 9 (1995): 407–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paul J. van der Maas, Gerrit van der Wal, Ilinka Haverkate et al, “Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995,” New Eng. J. of Med., Vol. 335, No. 22 (November 28, 1996): 1699–1705. See also Loes Pijnenborg, Paul van der Maas, Jan W.P.F. Kardaun et al, “Withdrawal or Withholding of Treatment at the End of Life,” Arch. Intern. Med., Vol. 155 (February 13, 1995), esp. at 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Herbert Hendin, Chris Rutenfrans and Zbigniew Zylicz, “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” op. cit., p. 1721.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Steve Dow, “Dutch laws linked to fears over euthanasia,” The Age: Melbourne Online (July 4, 1997). See http://www.theage.com.au.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ph. Schepens, “Euthanasia: Our Own Future?,” Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Spring 1988): 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J.H. Segers, “Elderly Persons on the Subject of Euthanasia,” Issues in Law & Medicine, Vol. 3 (1988): 407–424; John Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 108 (January 1992): 51–78; R. Fenigsen, “A Case Against Dutch Euthanasia,” Hastings Center Report, Vol. 19 (Supp.) (1989): 22–30. See also Fenigsen’s further critique in “The Report of the Dutch Governmental Committee on Euthanasia,” Issues in Law & Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Winter 1991): 339–344; “Physician-Assisted Death in the Netherlands: Impact on Long-Term Care,” Issues in Law & Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1995): 283–297, and “Dutch Euthanasia Revisited,” Issues in Law & Medicine, Vol. 13 (Winter 1997): 301–311. In his comments on the first draft of this study, Leenen wrote that Schepens, Segers, Fenigsen and Callahan do not base their arguments on research. These are not’ studies.’ Letter dated July 25, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Daniel Callahan, The Troubled Dream of Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), at 113. See also Daniel Callahan and Margot White, “The Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Creating a Regulatory Potemkin Village,” Un. of Richmond L. Rev., Vol. 30, No. 1 (January 1996): 1–81, esp. 13–18; Richard Fenigsen, “The Netherlands: New Regulations Concerning Euthanasia,” Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall 1993): 167–173; C..I. Dessaur and C. J. C. Rutenfrans, “The Present Day Practice of Euthanasia,” Issues in Law and Medicine, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Spring 1988): 399–405; Peter A. Singer and Mark Siegler, “Euthanasia — A Critique,” New England J. of Medicine, Vol. 322 (June 1990): 1881–1883; John Keown, “On Regulating Death,” The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 22 (March–April 1992): 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  40. House of Lords, Select Committee on Medical Ethics, session 1993–94, Vol. II, Minutes of Oral Evidence (London: HMSO, 1994), at 33.

    Google Scholar 

  41. P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, and L. Pijnenborg, Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, op. cit., p. 47. See also p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Breje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Gerrit van der Wal, Piet J. Kostense and Paul J. van der Maas, “Consultation with another Physician on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands,” Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 51 (2000): 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Herbert Hendin, “The Slippery Slope: The Dutch Example,” Duquesne L. Rev., Vol. 35 (1996), pp. 429–430. See also KNMG Guidelines on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (August 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2005). The Three Research Reports of 1990, 1995 and 2001, and Their Interpretations. In: Euthanasia in the Netherlands. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2251-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2251-7_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2250-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2251-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation