Cited by 138Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Two decades of research on euthanasia from the Netherlands. What have we learnt and what questions remain?

Open access
Rietjens, Judith A. C., van der Maas, Paul J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D., van Delden, Johannes J. M., van der Heide, Agnes·2009·Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Abstract

Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts. In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The idea that eligibility criteria in ADE regulations are gradually expanded, or that vulnerable populations are at greater risk, is not substantiated by empirical studies.

    “The idea that eligibility criteria in ADE regulations are gradually expanded, or that vulnerable populations are at greater risk is not substantiated by empirical studies [14–16].”

    From Trends in assisted dying among patients with psychiatric disorders and dementia in Belgium: A health registry study (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    In “What Have We Learnt?” (page unavailable), the paper says its studies found no evidence of a slippery slope and no higher frequency of euthanasia among listed vulnerable groups. It does not establish that empirical studies have failed to substantiate gradual expansion of eligibility criteria; “Interpreting the Criteria for Due Care” instead describes how courts have interpreted the boundary of unbearable suffering. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Netherlands, research suggests that approximately 20% of euthanasia cases are not reported to the review committees, down from 46% in 2001.

    “In the Netherlands, research suggests that approximately 20% of euthanasia cases are not reported to the review committees, down from 46% in 2001 (78, 81, 82).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Moyano, J., and S. Sambrano. 2008. Ten years later, Columbia is still confused about euthanasia. British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/314/7098/1849/h#187734.
  2. Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. 2007. Regional euthanasia review committees: 2007 annual report. http://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/en/ (accessed June 12, 2009.)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rietjens, J. A. C., van der Maas, P. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., van Delden, J. J. M., & van der Heide, A.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Corresponding author
Rietjens, Judith A. C.
Venue
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Published
2009-07-28
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
271-283
ISSN
  • 1176-7529 (ISSN-L)
  • 1872-4353
OpenAlex
W2171753918
Cited by
138
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, end-of-life care, Dutch euthanasia law, due care, review committee, opioids, quality of dying, medical education, health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review