Euthanasia

Source: More euthanasia cases in 2022, 29 couples helped to die - DutchNews.nl

More euthanasia cases in 2022, 29 couples helped to die

April 5, 2023

The number of people dying in the Netherlands with the help of euthanasia rose nearly 14% last year to 8,720, according to new figures from the regional monitoring committees, or RTE.

The percentage is higher than in recent years and took the proportion of euthanasia deaths up from 4.5% to 5.1% of all deaths last year. The number of deaths by euthanasia had been increasing by around 10% a year.

No scientific research has been carried out to establish a reason for the increase, the RTE said.

Most euthanasia requests are carried out on people who have cancer, but last year 288 dementia sufferers were helped to die, a rise of 34% on 2021.

‘Euthanasia for people with dementia is a complex and sensitive subject because at a certain point you are no longer mentally competent,’ said Fransien van ter Beek, of the voluntary euthanasia society NVVE. ‘So it is important to make your wishes and boundaries clear in time, and to involve a doctor.’

Couples

A further 379 elderly people died because they were suffering from a multitude of illnesses with no hope of recovery. This is a rise of 23% on 2021. Of them, 58 were part of a couple who chose to die together. In cases like these, both partners have to see a different consultant and both have to fully meet the criteria to be helped to die, the RTE said.

‘Despite the increase, there is a lot of uncertainty among doctors and the wider population about euthanasia and the accumulation of complaints associated with getting old,’ said Van ter Beek. ‘We would like to see more education for doctors on this topic.’

In 115 cases, people with severe psychiatric illness were helped to die, the same number as in 2021.

Criteria

In 13 cases, or 0.15% of the total, the RTE said doctors had not fully met the detailed legal demands when helping someone to die. Since euthanasia was legalized 20 years ago, just 133 of the 91,565 reports had not met the legal criteria.

‘We can draw the cautious conclusion that the legislation and the RTE have achieved what was intended: the caring and transparent practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands,’ said RTE chairman Jeroen Recourt.

To qualify for euthanasia in the Netherlands, the patient must be experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. Two doctors must also be involved, and meet detailed criteria covering duty of care.

Similar (but shorter): One in 20 deaths in Netherlands last year was euthanasia

Coverage in Dutch:
Nieuwe piek in cijfers euthanasie: vorig jaar 8720 meldingen
msn.com/nl-nl/nieuws/other/een-op-de-twintig-overlijdens-vorig-jaar-met-euthanasie
Steeds meer mensen kiezen voor euthanasie én krijgen toestemming
 
Source (Dutch only): Actieve levensbeëindiging voor kinderen onder de 12 binnenkort mogelijk

After lengthy deliberation
Active termination of life for children under 12 soon possible


April 12, 2023 18:28 - Updated April 12, 2023 22:03

A form of euthanasia will become possible for children under 12 who are suffering "unbearably" and "hopelessly" and who will die "within the foreseeable future." The coalition has agreed on a regulation to make that possible. On Friday, the council of ministers will decide on it, sources tell RTL News.

The regulation will include conditions to make active termination of life possible. For example, a doctor personally must have determined that there is no "reasonable possibility" to remove the hopeless suffering, the child's parents must have given permission and, in addition to the treating physician, another expert must be consulted.

Verbal as well as non-verbal signals

It is also "unthinkable" not to consult with the child itself, the draft regulation states - which, sources say, will also largely be the final regulation. Children are not considered capable of giving consent but as far as possible, the situation should certainly be discussed with them.

Verbal as well as non-verbal signals from the child should be included. If the doctor receives the signal that the child does not want its life to be terminated, parental consent is not enough to proceed with euthanasia.

In the Netherlands, anyone older than 12 years can ask for euthanasia themselves . For babies younger than 1 year, doctors can administer a lethal dose of medicine to end hopeless and unbearable suffering under very strict conditions, laid down in the so-called "Groningen protocol," in consultation with the parents.

But for children from 1 to 12 years of age, nothing was legally regulated for a long time. With unbearable suffering of children in that age group, parents can really only choose between waiting for their child to die, or administering palliative sedation, i.e. making someone lose consciousness with medication so that the final phase of life - and the accompanying suffering - is not consciously experienced.

Sensitive issue

Doctors have long been asking politicians for more tools to still provide help in these situations. Research had previously shown that parents of seriously ill children also needed a regulation that could help them.

Politicians have also been talking about regulation for a long time, but the subject is very sensitive. Many political parties struggle with active life termination, and the current coalition is often divided on medical-ethical issues as well. It has been agreed that this is a so-called "free issue," where MPs are allowed to decide for themselves how to vote.

Five to 10 children a year

Back in 2019, then-Minister Hugo de Jonge reported that he would enter into talks with various healthcare parties about a possible arrangement. In June last year, Minister Kuipers published a draft regulation about which he again discussed with doctors, but it took months longer than expected for political agreement on the issue to emerge.

It is estimated that about five to 10 children qualify for the scheme each year.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
In the Netherlands, anyone older than 12 years can ask for euthanasia themselves . For babies younger than 1 year, doctors can administer a lethal dose of medicine to end hopeless and unbearable suffering under very strict conditions, laid down in the so-called "Groningen protocol," in consultation with the parents.

Looked up the Groningen protocol (Table 1 & 2):

nejmp058026_t1.jpeg

nejmp058026_t2.jpeg


Edit: Once posted, the image has an X through it on my end. Maybe they are visable on other browsers or something. Here they are again as screen shots:

1681453486527.png

1681453454834.png
 
Soiurce (Dutch only): Reguleren actieve levensbeëindiging bij kinderen heilloze weg

Regulating active termination of life in children ill-fated path

Editor-in-Chief: April 17, 2023 10:37 - Modified: April 17, 2023 12:11
Opinion | commentary

In 2014, Belgium was the first country in the world to decide to legalize child euthanasia. The minimum age of 12 years, which had applied until then, was removed from the law, after which doctors were free to grant death requests from minors under certain conditions. It did not take long before the question arose in the Lower House: And now? What does the Netherlands do?

After long and intensive behind-the-scenes consultations, then-Health Minister Hugo de Jonge (CDA) opted for a compromise in 2020. The minimum age of 12 remained in the law, but doctors were given their own reporting and assessment procedure for life-ending acts on minors. This was to be included in a ministerial regulation; a form of subordinate legislation.

Over a year ago, however, it became clear that the public prosecutor's office (OM) could not cope with the concept designed at De Jonge's initiative. It contained, according to the strict opinion of prosecutor general Rinus Otte, too few guarantees and was therefore at odds with article 2 of the European Human Rights Convention that protects the right to life. This left the initiative in the hands of De Jonge's successor, Ernst Kuipers. On Friday, the latter declared in a parliamentary letter that he was prepared to work on a new regulation.

However, it is very questionable whether the minister is not entering a maze with that decision. If the Dutch Society for Pediatrics (NVK), the Ministry of Health Care and Justice and the OM did not come to an agreement last time, why now? The illusion that all tragedy can be captured in laws and rules, provided there are long enough consultations, apparently still prevails. Moreover, it looks as if the minister and the coalition have yet to agree internally on what requirements the regulation must contain if it is to be legally prudent. CU party chairman Mirjam Bikker said Friday that it should only concern children who are in the dying stages and are suffering untreatably because all pain and sedation drugs have worn off. Kuipers was not that specific. That, too, raises questions.

It also remains unclear why the NVK is so keen on regulation. Out of fear that otherwise a pediatrician could be charged with murder? The past offers little ground for such fears: virtually all cases of active termination of life in newborns for which doctors invoked force majeure were silently dismissed by the public prosecutor.

Then there's the question of how much more merciful care now becomes, in the deepest sense, from such a dying regulation. How many parents will soon feel the pressure of whether or not to discuss life termination with the doctor as their child with a serious, multiple condition approaches the age of 12? The ifs and buts are so numerous that Kuipers would truly be choosing an unholy option if he decides to continue down this path.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 

Euthanizing the poor is a 'harm reduction approach' for two Canadian pseudo-intellectuals.

(LifeSiteNews) — As support for assisted suicide in Canada climbs despite an excruciating series of stories reporting that the poor and disabled are opting for lethal injections out of pure desperation, we are witnessing the emergence of a truly post-Christian culture. As a headline in the U.K. magazine The Spectator asked last year: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” The response from some bio-ethicists appears to be: Well, why not?

In fact, a new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. Kayla Wiebe, a PhD candidate in philosophy, and bioethicist Amy Mullin, a philosophy professor, wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics that:

To force people who are already in unjust social circumstances to have to wait until those social circumstances improve, or for the possibility of public charity but unreliably occurs when particularly distressing cases become public, is unacceptable. A harm reduction approach acknowledges that the recommended solution is necessarily an imperfect one: a ‘lesser evil’ between two or more less than ideal options.
The horror stories of Canadians seeking assisted suicide because they cannot get the social assistance they need are “worst-case scenarios,” the bioethicists write. “One way of responding to these cases is, ‘Well, clearly then, medical aid in dying should not be available to them,’” Mullin said in an interview. “We just don’t think the fact that social conditions are contributing to make their lives intolerable means that they don’t have the wherewithal to make that choice. People can make their own determination about whether their lives are worth living, and we should respect that.”


Wiebe and Mullin reject the idea that the circumstances driving Canadians to suicide are coercive, and that refusing to kill them upon request “amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world.” In their view, the best “harm reduction approach” would mean that “the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.”

We are seeing what happens when we redefine words; when suicide and lethal injections can be considered “medical aid” or healthcare at all — bioethicists can write that suicide is “harm reduction” and that offering suicide to those with intolerable social conditions is “the least harmful way forward.” According to Wiebe: “All options on the table are really tragic and said. But the least harmful way forward is to allow people who are competent to make decisions to have access to this choice, even if it’s a terrible one.”

It is easy to mock or dismiss this paper, but keep in mind that a very short amount of time ago euthanasia activists were insisting that nobody was asking for assisted suicide because of their social conditions. Some, it appears, have already moved on to admitting that it is happening and that it should be permitted. Considering how rapidly Canada’s suicide regime has grown and the Trudeau government’s determination to expand it further, I think we should treat proposals like this one with deadly seriousness. Canada has decided to define suicide by lethal injection as healthcare. How can this “healthcare” be justifiably denied to people?

As Yuan Yu Zhu, a Canadian research fellow at Harris Manchester College at Oxford who writes regularly on euthanasia, stated: “It is more than tragic: it is a moral stain on our country, for which future generations will have to atone for.” He is correct. Things are going to get much, much worse before — or I should say if — things get better.
 
Euthanizing the poor is a 'harm reduction approach' for two Canadian pseudo-intellectuals.
As Yuan Yu Zhu, a Canadian research fellow at Harris Manchester College at Oxford who writes regularly on euthanasia, stated: “It is more than tragic: it is a moral stain on our country, for which future generations will have to atone for.” He is correct. Things are going to get much, much worse before — or I should say if — things get better.

Pretty much the only words that made sense.
 
Source (Dutch only): https://www.nd.nl/varia/varia/1177134/steun-voor-euthanasie-neemt-verder-toe-tot-60-procent

Support for euthanasia rises further to 60 percent

Public support for euthanasia continues to grow. By now, 60 percent of the Dutch consider self-determination over one's own life and death to be a valid concern, Erasmus MC, Amsterdam UMC, UMC Utrecht and Erasmus University Rotterdam note based on a poll of nearly 1,100 people. In 2016 and 2010 this was 53 and 49 percent respectively, they recalled at the presentation of the fourth evaluation study of the euthanasia law.

ANP - Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 16:18

Euthanasia is also being performed more frequently: 9025 times in 2021 compared to 6650 times in 2015. "What is striking is that patients more often decide to request euthanasia at an earlier stage," Erasmus MC says. The most frequently requested euthanasia is due to cancer. Euthanasia for people with advanced dementia or mental illness accounts for less than 5 percent of euthanasia cases.

"Just over half of citizens agree with the statement that people with advanced dementia and people with mental disorders should be able to qualify for euthanasia," Erasmus MC reported. Nearly half of Dutch doctors consider it "conceivable" to perform euthanasia on patients with advanced dementia. A third of doctors find it conceivable to perform euthanasia on patients with psychiatric disorders.

More than 20 years after the introduction of the Act on the Assessment of Termination of Life and Assisted Suicide (Wtl), it may need to be adapted to the future, the researchers say. They have outlined future scenarios, including options for broadening assisted suicide and taking more account of the sentiment of a "completed life."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
Last edited:
Source (Dutch only)
Support for euthanasia rises further to 60 percent...

Seems that number is floating around, with Canada stated as being at 61%, at least in February by an Angus Reid poll. The number of people doing so has indeed risen since:

In the online survey of a representative national sample, 73% of Canadians (down three points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in January 2021) are in favour of the practice under the current federal guidelines:

Well up from the Angus Reid poll, if that was to be believed or if this poll is to be believed.

This link provides a backgrounder:


Since 2016, the number of Canadians accessing the procedure has risen significantly. The country recorded 31,664 assisted deaths between 2016 and 2021.

The headlines make one think such a large part of society is behind it, yet digging into the statistics of a new Research Co. poll shows the following:

Ultimately, support fell to 31% for offering MAID for irredeemable mental illness. It said half oppose this idea, with 18% unsure.

Two-thirds believe those seeking MAID must exhaust all treatment options to access the procedure. One-quarter of them disagreed.

Then there is the poll data itself:

Then the methodology:


Methodology: Results are based on an online study conducted from April 22 to April 24, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error, which measures sample variability, is +/- 3.1 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty.

Despite what it says, one might wonder where and who and in what demographics; social, economic or otherwise the poll was conducted. However, they seem to say they accounted for this (using the Canadian census data that Justin expanded and forced), yet would be skeptical based on people talked to, and the general sentiments being discussed - the contrasts.

The press release (a link within the link above) states categorically:

Vancouver, BC [May 5, 2023] – More than seven-in-ten Canadians believe the country has the right policies in place to allow people to seek medical assistance in dying, a new Research Co. poll has found.

Notice it all came out of Vancouver - and 7 of 10 Canadians from parts of Vancouver might indeed give those numbers, yet of course it is statistics, and it must be close with a margin of error.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

One can read how the questions (first link - the data) were phrased.
 
Source: Law regulating euthanasia for terminally ill children takes effect next year

Thursday, 29 June 2023 - 12:50

Law regulating euthanasia for terminally ill children takes effect next year


From next year, euthanasia will be possible for children between the ages of 1 and 12 who suffer hopelessly and unbearably. Health Minister Ernst Kuipers expects the new regulation to take effect on 1 January 2024. The Tweede Kamer, the lower house of the Dutch parliament, approved the proposal during a debate on medical-ethical issues.

Part of the Kamer only questioned the choice to use a regulation instead of a law. But Kuipers opted for regulation because of the complexity and sensitivity of the scheme. D66, GroenLinks, PVV, SP, and SGP, among others, argued that the complexity and sensitivity was reason to put it in legislation.

According to Kuipers, there aren’t enough examples to arrive at a standard for legislation. He said it is very rare for young children to be so sick that their parents and doctors see death as the only option. He considers examples necessary for legislation. Kuipers indicated that when developing a standard, he would also look at situations where termination of life was not chosen when it was an option. GroenLinks MP Corinne Ellemeet had insisted on this.

Apart from the discussion of using regulation or legislation, VVD MP Harry Bevers is “pleased” that seriously ill young children can “die with dignity” from the beginning of 2024. He hopes the regulation will end the “dilemma for doctors” to administer euthanasia to young children who can’t decide for themselves.

Ellemeet of GroenLinks also pointed out during the debate that doctors hesitate to perform a late abortion if there is a severe abnormality because they fear prosecution. According to her, women are therefore going to Belgium, where doctors will do the procedure after a pre-assessment of the necessity. In the Netherlands, the assessment happens afterward. GroenLinks advocated for an assessment in advance. The VVD agreed. The Minister promised to look at how things are organized in Belgium.

Furthermore, Fleur Agema (PVV) wanted clarification from the Minister about the ethical side of artificial intelligence in healthcare. “What is acceptable in the context of human contact, and what is not?” she asked Kuipers. He promised to send a letter to the Tweede Kamer on this topic before the end of this year.

Reporting by ANP

Dutch coverage:
https://www.msn.com/nl-nl/nieuws/Binnenland/regeling-levensbe%C3%ABindiging-doodzieke-kinderen-gaat-begin-2024-in/
 
UPDATE on posts #266 and #288
Source: Trial begins Monday in criminal case against suicide drug supplier

Monday, 3 July 2023 - 08:35

Trial begins Monday in criminal case against suicide drug supplier


Alex S. will stand trial on Monday for supplying the lethal drug known as "Drug X" to those who placed orders with him for it. The drug, sometimes distributed as a powder, made it possible for his clients to commit suicide. The Public Prosecution Service (OM) said at least ten of these people actually took their own lives, meaning S. has violated laws against assisted suicide.

The actual number of people who died after using the drug supplied by S. may be higher, prosecutors alleged. However, he will only be prosecuted in those cases where the evidence is strongest.

The suspect is a member of Coöperatie Laatste Wil (CLW), an organization that advocates eliminating most restrictions regarding self-determination of one's death. S. is not a doctor, and is not an expert in medications. According to CLW, he has supplied Drug X to 2,200 members of that club, and possibly a total of about 10,000 people.

The OM is also prosecuting S. for money laundering and the distribution of medications without a license. S. also allegedly supplied an anti-emetic with the suicide drug, to prevent people from vomiting after taking Drug X.

The District Court in Den Bosch has set aside Monday and Tuesday for the substantive hearings of the criminal case. The prosecutor will also say whether or not they recommend a conviction, incarceration, community service, or other sentencing conditions. The suspect potentially faces years of prison time.

Those who support S. have announced that they will hold a demonstration prior to the trial. The demonstration will be organized by Steungroep Dappere Burgers [Support Group Brave Citizens].

Similar: Euthanasia campaigner goes on trial for selling "suicide powder" - DutchNews.nl

Dutch coverage:
OM: zonder vragen te stellen verkocht Alex S. aan 1600 mensen zelfmoordpoeder
 
Source (Dutch only):
Bondsdag Duitsland stemt wetsvoorstellen rond euthanasie weg

Bundestag Germany votes down bills around euthanasia

René Zeeman: July 6, 2023 13:19 - Modified: July 6, 2023 13:51

The Bundestag voted Thursday morning on what in Germany is called the euthanasia reform. Deputies rejected both bills on the table.

The first bill came from a group of Bundestag members around Lars Castellucci (SPD) and Ansgar Heveling (CDU). They wanted to regulate a legal ban on organized assisted suicide and euthanasia through criminal law. Organized dying assistance would be allowed as far as they were concerned if the person in question is an adult and knows what to expect. He or she must have been examined at least twice by a psychologist and a counseling session must have been held. The group wants to rule out social pressure. It must also be certain that a person is not in psychological distress. This bill was defeated Thursday morning by 304 votes in favor, 363 against and 23 abstentions.

The second bill came from a group around Katrin Helling-Plahr (FDP) and Renate Künast (Greens). They wanted euthanasia to no longer fall within criminal law. They believe that people who want euthanasia should have access to means by which they can end their lives. Prior to that, a counseling session must have taken place. This bill was also voted down, with 287 votes in favor, 375 against and 20 abstentions.

The German parliament was forced to find a new regulation for euthanasia because Germany's Constitutional Court annulled euthanasia paragraph 217 in 2020. The paragraph, according to a court ruling, violated the personality right of citizens enshrined in the constitution. "That includes the right to decide for oneself when to die," one of the judges said. Section 217 made assisted dying virtually impossible.

The ruling by the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe was made when Angela Merkel was still Chancellor. She could not take up the case because the court ruled that a broad public discussion about euthanasia had to take place first. That is what happened. An exchange of views and thoughts followed via the media.

In Germany, euthanasia is even more sensitive than in the Netherlands. The term euthanasia reminds Germans of the hundreds of thousands of physically handicapped and mentally disabled people the Nazis killed. Germans therefore use the term Sterbehilfe, or aid in dying.

By the way, the German Patient Protection Foundation rejected any bill. It argues that the right to self-determination of people who want to die and protection from abuse by others are far too complex to lay down in a law.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
Source: Suicide drug supplier gets 3.5 years in prison for violating assisted suicide law

Tuesday, 18 July 2023 - 13:08

Suicide drug supplier gets 3.5 years in prison for violating assisted suicide law


On Tuesday, the court in Den Bosch sentenced Alex S. to 3.5 years in prison, 1.5 years of which was conditionally suspended, for supplying the suicide drug X. According to prosecutors, at least ten people to whom he provided the drug took their own lives, meaning he violated the law against assisted suicide. S. allegedly sent the drug to at least 1,600 people.

The court criticized S. for sending packages containing the suicide drug by post “on a large scale” for three years. “You asked no questions and delivered when required,” said the court's chairman. “You are not a doctor and not authorized to provide this medicine.” According to the judge, S. has “taken the law into his own hands.”

The Public Prosecution Service (OM) demanded four years in prison against the 30-year-old man from Eindhoven, the maximum possible However, the court weight in S.'s favor that he has reduced accountability and was not out to make money by providing the substance.

Nevertheless, the court "wants to make it clear to everyone that this cannot be done with impunity," the judge said. "You have been instrumental in the deaths of ten people, and that could potentially increase by a factor of 169," the chairman told S. "There is a large amount of the deadly drug in society." The scale of this case is "huge," he stressed.

The OM wanted a strict sentence and conviction that sends a signal that assisted suicide outside what is permitted under the euthanasia law “cannot remain unpunished, even if it is done with the best of intentions.” Prosecutors had demanded four years in prison during their argument.

At least ten of the people who received the drug from S. went on to commit suicide, the Public Prosecution Service alleged during the trial. The prosecutor said S. was guilty of assisted suicide in violation of the law. Suspicions against S. ran deeper, and the ten cases brought up in court were those in which the most evidence was available. During the hearing, the prosecutor noted that the actual number of deaths may be higher and may also increase in the future.

The suspect allegedly sent the drug to at least 1,600 people. In 30 cases, the police discovered that these people had transferred money to the suspect when they were still alive.

It is the first criminal case involving Drug X. The lethal drugs he sent by post are not prohibited, but S. should not have supplied people who intended to use the drug to end their lives. In addition, S. also supplied anti-emetic medication, which is not permitted without a permit. This prevented people from vomiting after ingesting the fatal dose.

S. himself argued that he wanted to help people die in a humane way. His lawyer said that investigators have not proven that those people who died from Drug X did not receive it from another source.

Also, people who want to die could have found other ways to end their lives. “Whatever you think of the drug, it has prevented much worse in a number of situations.” S. was referring to other forms of suicide, which he says are more gruesome than taking a deadly drug. Furthermore, the defense argued that S. was not someone who wanted to earn “as much money as possible” with Drug X.

However, the OM said that S. earned tens of thousands of euros with his trade. That was a form of money laundering, according to the Public Prosecution Service.

Reporting by ANP and NL Times

Similar: Dutch court finds "substance X" seller guilty of aiding suicide - DutchNews.nl

Dutch coverage:
3,5 jaar cel voor man die 'Middel X' voor zelfdoding leverde
Alex S. krijgt 3,5 jaar celstraf om verkoop zelfdodingspoeder
 
Source: Psychiatrist reprimanded for sloppy handling of euthanasia requests

Wednesday, 26 July 2023 - 14:29

Psychiatrist reprimanded for sloppy handling of euthanasia requests


A psychiatrist who handles euthanasia requests has been reprimanded for not acting with due care in two cases. The Regional Disciplinary Court for Healthcare in Amsterdam ruled that the healthcare provider did not follow the correct procedure. In the first case, she disregarded a second opinion; in the second one, she did not ask for one.

In order to proceed with euthanasia, a doctor must meet all due care criteria laid down by law. For example, a patient must be mentally competent to make the decision to die. Psychiatrists also use another guideline, which states that with euthanasia requests, they should always ask for a second opinion from a fellow psychiatrist who knows the patient's mental disorder.

The reprimanded psychiatrist is accused of ignoring a colleague’s second opinion in one case. That fellow psychiatrist found that the patient involved was not mentally competent, among other things, “because the reason for wanting to die lies in a psychotic conviction.” There were also further treatment options available for the patient, the colleague said.

The psychiatrist did continue to treat her patient. But when that process was completed, she took up the request for euthanasia again. After consulting her team and another expert, she concluded that the patient was mentally competent. When she represented this to the colleague psychiatrist, who previously ruled that the patient was not mentally competent, the colleague did not understand her conclusions. According to the disciplinary committee, the reprimanded psychiatrists did not properly substantiate why she stuck to her own opinion.

In the second case, the psychiatrist did not ask for a second opinion at all. She herself also admitted that this was contrary to the guideline used in psychiatry “and was therefore incorrect.”

The disciplinary committee said it considered the "complexity of the matter" with which the psychiatrist had to deal when imposing the reprimand. The Board also said that it had not been shown that patient safety had been compromised. A reprimand means that the disciplinary committee condemns the behavior of a healthcare provider but that the person can continue to practice their profession.
 
Source: Zoraya (28) staat 2,5 jaar op wachtlijst voor euthanasie: 'Leven lukt niet'

Zoraya (28) on waiting list for euthanasia for 2.5 years: 'Life doesn't work out'

Lene Makkink - August 10, 2023 09:37 Updated August 10, 2023 14:59

After ten years of mental health treatment and trying every possible therapy and medication, 28-year-old Zoraya Ter Beek came to the conclusion that life just wasn't working out for her. She decided to enter a euthanasia program to end her life. However, there she encountered a waiting list of more than two and a half years. And waiting lists for people with mental suffering continue to grow, the Euthanasia Expert Center confirms.

"I did my best," Zoraya tells RTL News. The choice to start a euthanasia process was not an easy one. "I don't want to die, but living is not possible. Then it's a choice between growing old sick with a lot of misery, or keeping the honor to myself and saying: I quit."

Zoraya from Twente used to be bullied very badly, resulting in a lot of gloom. "You carry that around with you as an adult too, unfortunately," she says. Although the mental health services and therapy helped her deal with emotions, she remained suicidal. "You do learn to give things a place, but therapy is not a panacea."

Expertise Center

Zoraya came to the Euthanasia Expertise Center because her own doctor and psychiatrist did not want to be involved in the euthanasia process for personal reasons. In the Netherlands, general practitioners are allowed to reject euthanasia requests due to principled objections, but then they must explain to the patient why they are not granting the request, explains doctors' federation KNMG.

"The general practitioner thought psychological suffering was too complex and the psychiatrist could not handle it emotionally. I understand that too," Zoraya says. "I have no hard feelings about it, they are also just people, lol."

Over two years of waiting


"Depending on the diagnosis and the region where the patient lives, the waiting time varies from a few weeks to over two years," said a spokesperson for the Euthanasia Expert Center. For patients presenting on the basis of psychological suffering, the wait time has increased because of the growing number of patients. "We have only a handful of psychiatrists on staff who can investigate these requests for help," the spokesman says.

According to the expertise center, the long wait time is a combination of the many requests by patients who cannot be helped by their own practitioner and the nationwide shortage of psychiatrists. In 2021, the expertise center received 868 euthanasia requests from people with mental suffering; in 2022, there were 781. Although the number of requests decreased last year, waiting lists are still growing as the previous increase in requests persisted.

"We also find the long wait times inhumane and that is not what we want. We are working with practitioners in the field to provide better care for patients who have euthanasia requests," the spokesperson continued. We are also looking at expanding the number of psychiatrists available.

Updates by mail


Zoraya knew what she was getting into when she applied to the center of expertise. Online, the waiting time was already indicated. But after two years of waiting, she still hadn't heard anything. On the phone, she was told to expect at least two to six months more waiting time. To pass the time, she continued with daily activities, such as going to the gym and shopping. "Life just goes on, it can't be put on pause," she said.

The waiting period did bite, because of all the uncertainty involved. "It's two and a half years of wondering: what am I doing it for? The longer the time passes, the harder it is to tell yourself to stick with it," Zoraya says.

Moreover, a doctor or psychiatrist can decide at any time that she does not meet the six legal requirements for euthanasia for mental suffering. In that case, her euthanasia request will be denied. "At the center of expertise, it is also known that if there is a rejection, I will probably do it myself," Zoraya says.

No doubt


She never doubted her euthanasia decision, not even because of the long wait. "Those around me were worried about whether I would stick with it," Zoraya says. During those two-and-a-half years, she had to regularly remind them that she would not just "do something crazy" and wait out the process.

She knows stories of others who stopped applying in the first place because of the long waiting list. "That does show how heavy that waiting list weighs. Once you get to the stage where you don't see the point, two and a half years in uncertainty is a very long time."

First interview

Meanwhile, Zoraya has had the first meeting with her 'team.' That team consists of the doctors, nurses and psychiatrists who assist her during the euthanasia process. She got the call that it was really going to start on the morning a friend of hers died by euthanasia. "That, of course, is very doubly so," she says.

"I wanted to jump in the air at first, but when I hung up I got nauseous," Zoraya says. The realization then sunk in that she had to start telling all her loved ones that her euthanasia process was entering the next phase. "For me it is great, but for the people I leave behind it is not. I realize that too."

Before her request is granted, many conversations are scheduled. The psychiatrist and nurse must come to the conclusion that Zoraya meets the six legal conditions for euthanasia for mental suffering. To do so, they must also consult an independent doctor for a second opinion. Finally, an SCEN doctor must look at the request. That is a family physician or medical specialist who is specially trained to provide expert and independent support and consultation to fellow physicians on euthanasia requests.

Once she has gone through all the steps - which take six to 12 months - the euthanasia will be performed within six weeks. Until then, Zoraya still tries to derive happiness from the little things, "for example having coffee somewhere with my boyfriend, or visits from friends. She can also definitely still laugh and occasionally have fun with others. "If it was really only misery, I would be long gone," she says.

Zoraya has a wish date for her death. The center of expertise is trying to get close to that. At least by Christmas, she will still be there. "I love Christmas and I've told everyone I'll still be here then," she said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care requirements

There are six care requirements for euthanasia in people with mental suffering:

* There must be a voluntary and deliberate request by the patient.
* There must be hopeless and unbearable suffering.
* The patient must have been informed of the current situation and outlook.
* The physician must be convinced that there is no reasonable other solution for the patient.
* At least one other independent physician must have been consulted.
* The termination of life or assisted suicide must be performed with medical care.

When the requirements are not met, a physician must deny a euthanasia request.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 
Back
Top Bottom