Cited by 152Palliative and Oncologic CarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Opinions of health care professionals and the public after eight years of euthanasia legislation in the Netherlands: A mixed methods approach

Open access
Kouwenhoven, Pauline SC, Raijmakers, Natasja JH, van Delden, Johannes JM, Rietjens, Judith AC, Schermer, Maartje HN, van Thiel, Ghislaine JMW, Trappenburg, Margo J, van de Vathorst, Suzanne +5 more·2013·Palliative Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the Netherlands has been regulated since 2002 by the Euthanasia Act. In the ongoing debate about the interpretation of this Act, comparative information about the opinions of the different stakeholders is needed. AIM: To evaluate the opinions of Dutch physicians, nurses and the general public on the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey among Dutch physicians and nurses in primary and secondary care and members of the Dutch general public, followed by qualitative interviews among selected respondents. The participants were: 793 physicians, 1243 nurses and 1960 members of the general public who completed the questionnaire; 83 were interviewed. RESULTS: Most respondents agreed with the requirement of a patient request (64-88%) and the absence of a requirement concerning life expectancy (48-71%). PAS was thought acceptable by 24-39% of respondents for patients requesting it because of mental suffering due to loss of control, chronic depression or early dementia. In the case of severe dementia, one third of physicians, 58% of nurses and 77% of the general public agreed with performing euthanasia based on an advance directive. Interviewees illustrated these findings and supported the Act. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and the general public mostly support the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS. The law permits euthanasia or PAS for mental suffering but this possibility is not widely endorsed. The general public is more liberal towards euthanasia for advanced dementia than health care professionals. We conclude that there is ample support for the law after eight years of legal euthanasia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269216312448507

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Only a minority of physicians are willing to perform euthanasia for psychological suffering, although the number is increasing over time.

    “only a minority of physicians are willing to perform euthanasia for psychological suffering (although the number is increasing over time)”
  • Evidence from the Netherlands shows that requests for euthanasia from psychiatric patients (as well as from patients suffering from severe dementia and patients being tired of living) are much less likely to be granted as compared to requests for euthanasia from patients suffering from physical disorders.

    “evidence from the Netherlands shows that requests for euthanasia from psychiatric patients (as well as from patients suffering from severe dementia and patients being tired of living) are much less likely to be granted as compared to requests for euthanasia from patients suffering from physical disorders”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kouwenhoven, P. S., Raijmakers, N. J., van Delden, J. J., Rietjens, J. A., Schermer, M. H., van Thiel, G. J., Trappenburg, M. J., van de Vathorst, S., van der Vegt, B. J., Vezzoni, C., Weyers, H., van Tol, D. G., & van der Heide, A.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, The Netherlands
  • Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, The Netherlands
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Published
2012-06-13
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
273-280
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
OpenAlex
W1998057600
Cited by
151
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • 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 › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia legislation, public opinion, physician attitudes, nurse attitudes, advance directives, advanced dementia, psychological suffering, patient requests
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Euthanasia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Public Opinion, Surveys and Questionnaires, Qualitative Research

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