Research
Consultants in cases of intended euthanasia or assisted suicide in
the Netherlands
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Gerrit van der Wal, Piet J Kostense and
Paul J van der Maas
MJA 1999; 170: 360-363
For editorial comment, see Hendin
Abstract -
Introduction -
Methods -
Results -
Discussion -
Acknowledgement -
References -
Authors' details
-
-
More articles on Ethics
Abstract |
Objective: To investigate how often physicians act
as a consultant in the review of intended euthanasia and assisted
suicide (EAS), by whom physicians are asked to act as a consultant, and
the consultant's reasons for not agreeing with the intended
performance of EAS. Design: A retrospective descriptive study. Setting: The Netherlands. Participants: A stratified random sample of 405 Dutch
physicians. Main outcome measures: Number of times the physician has
been a consultant; how often a physician had previously been asked to
be a consultant by the same treating physician; why consultants
advised against EAS. Results: 42% of interviewed physicians had acted as a
consultant for EAS and 11% had been a consultant more than three times.
Half the physicians who acted as a consultant more than once were
invited to do so by the same attending physician, and 41% of
consultants had previously consulted the attending physician. The
main reasons consultants advised against EAS were because treatment
options were still available, the patient's request was not
well-considered or persistent, and the patient's suffering was not
unbearable and hopeless. Conclusions: Many physicians have at some time been a
consultant in a case of intended EAS, but only very few have been able to
gain experience in consultancy. To guarantee high standards of
consultation, it may be advisable to appoint and train specific
consultants for EAS.
|
| Introduction |
In the Netherlands, physicians can be involved in euthanasia or
assisted suicide (EAS) either by performing or by being consulted by
another physician who intends to perform EAS. Consultation is
considered to be an important aspect in the review of cases of
EAS,1
and is a requirement that must be met to avoid prosecution for
performing EAS.
Consultation takes place in about 99% of reported cases of EAS (41% of
cases are reported) and in about 37% of unreported cases. In 88% of
cases of EAS in which consultation took place the consultant had seen
the patient.2,3 In a consultation, a
physician formally confers with an independent colleague in
considering whether to grant a request for EAS. The consultant
determines whether the patient's physician has acted according to
the requirements for prudent practice: the patient's request is
voluntary, well-considered and persistent, the patient's
suffering is unbearable and hopeless, and there are no alternatives
for treatment remaining. A consultant should be competent and
independent of both the attending physician and the patient, and
should visit the patient.1,4
Consultation for EAS is a relatively new task for physicians, and is
not part of general medical training. Physicians generally are not
used to pronouncing formal judgement on the decision-making process
of their colleagues and are not used to seeing patients in a
consultancy role. Moreover, consultants need to have knowledge
relevant to EAS, such as the possibilities of palliative
care.5 Gaining experience as a
consultant seems to be important for a physician to become
comfortable in this role.
As part of a nationwide study on EAS and other practices involving the
end of life in the Netherlands,3,6 we set out to determine how
often physicians act as a consultant, whether physicians frequently
consult the same colleague (or vice versa), whether groups of
physicians are asked to be a consultant more often than other groups,
the reasons why consultants do not agree with the intended
performance of EAS, and the extent to which the consultant feels
responsible for the attending physician's final decision to grant or
refuse a request for EAS.
|
|
Methods |
|
Study population |
For this retrospective, descriptive study, we interviewed a
stratified random sample of Dutch physicians.2 Participants
were stratified according to specialty. The physicians in each
stratum were ordered by postal code of their work address and every
nth physician was selected. The stratum size was based on the
frequencies of medical decisions concerning the end of life and the
homogeneity of the patient population (morbidity and age) per
stratum.
To interview the desired number of physicians, 559 were included in
the sample; 83 did not meet the selection criteria and 21 had a chronic
illness or could not be located. Of the remaining 455, 50 (11%) did not
respond.
The final sample of 405 physicians included 124 general
practitioners, 74 nursing home physicians (nursing homes in the
Netherlands are multifunctional institutions which care for
predominantly elderly patients with chronic diseases and physical
and/or mental disorders and handicaps) and 207 specialists in
cardiology, surgery, internal medicine, respiratory medicine and
neurology (oncology and palliative care are not distinct
specialties in the Netherlands, but are practised by specialists in
other disciplines, such as internal medicine). Physicians in the
above-listed specialties attend 87% of all deaths occurring in
hospitals. Together with the general practitioners and nursing home
physicians, they attend about 95% of all deaths in the Netherlands.
Physicians who were not practising in their registered specialty in
the same institution since 1 January 1994 were excluded.
|
Measuring instruments |
The interviews were conducted from November 1995 to February 1996 by
30 experienced physicians who were specially trained for the study.
The questionnaire consisted mainly of open-ended questions for the
respondents, with prestructured response categories for the
interviewers. In the interviews, the definitions of euthanasia,
assisted suicide and consultation (Box 1) were explicitly described
to the respondents. The interviews took about 2-3 hours. For this
study we predominantly used data on how often the respondents had been
consultant ever and in 1994 and 1995, and data on the most recent case
(all 108 cases occurred between 1994 and 1996) in which the respondent
had been a consultant.
|
Analysis |
To make the data of the stratified samples representative for all
deaths in the Netherlands, we weighted the data per stratum. We
calculated weights based on the proportion of the various types of
physicians in the sample. In addition, the weights of the five
specialties were corrected for the 13% of in-hospital deaths that
were attended by other medical specialists. Proportions and 95%
confidence intervals for these proportions were obtained by direct
standardisation7 to adjust for marked
variation among the different types of physicians. The normal
approximation to the binomial distribution was used.
Estimates of the number of consultations in 1995 were based on the
(weighted) data on how often each physician had acted as consultant in
1994 and 1995.
Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to obtain insight
into determinants of whether physicians had ever been a consultant.
Because of the stratification according to specialty, the variable
"specialty" was included in all analyses. To deal with this
categorical variable we used indicator variables, choosing the
general practitioners as the reference category.
|
|
Results |
In 1995, in the Netherlands, we estimate that almost 4000
consultations took place in cases of intended EAS. In most of these,
the consultant was a general practitioner; nursing home physicians
rarely acted as a consultant (Box 2).
|
Physicians who had been a consultant |
Of the 405 physicians in the sample, 42% at some time had been a
consultant in intended EAS (Table 1).
In 1994 (the year in which the notification procedure was legally
enforced) or 1995, 32% of physicians had been a consultant -- general
practitioners more often than medical specialists, and specialists
more often than nursing home physicians (Box 2).
Eight physicians had refused to act as a consultant, for various
reasons: lack of time (2), not independent of the attending physician
or the patient (2), doubt whether requirements for prudent practice
had been met (2), disagreement with notification procedure (1), or
the attending physician did not intend to perform euthanasia (1).
Eleven per cent of the physicians had been a consultant more than three
times (Box 3), and in 1995, 3% had been a consultant three or more times.
|
Previous consultations between consultant and consulting
physician |
Half of the physicians who had been a consultant more than once had
previously been consulted by the same physician who consulted them in
their most recent case. In 24% of these cases, the treating physician
and the consultant had previously acted as consultants for each other
(Box 4). Physicians who previously consulted or had been consulted by
the same physician agreed more often with the intended EAS than
physicians who did not (90% v. 80%), but this difference was not
significant.
|
Reasons for advising against EAS |
The 28 physicians who had at some time advised against the performance
of EAS were each asked to describe up to three such cases. Together,
they described 48 cases in which they had given this advice. In 42 cases
EAS was not carried out, in three it was, and in three instances the
consultant did not know the outcome. The consultants gave the
following reasons for advising against EAS: there were still
alternative treatment options (20 cases), the patient's request was
not well-considered or persistent (12 cases), the patient's
suffering was not unbearable and hopeless (nine cases), the request
was made under pressure of the family (five cases), the patient was
already dying (five cases), and the attending physician felt
manipulated by the patient (one case).
|
The consultant's responsibility |
Sixty-five per cent of consultants considered that they had joint
responsibility only in those cases in which the attending physician
acted according to their judgement, and 30% did not consider that they
had any joint responsibility. Medical specialists felt that they had
joint responsibility more often than general practitioners (80%
[95% CI, 68.6%-91.3%] v. 61% [95% CI, 47.7%-74.6%]).
|
Determinants of having been a consultant |
With univariate analyses corrected for specialty, physician's age,
sex, religion, region in which the physician lives, belief that every
case of EAS should be reviewed and belief that consultation should
take place in every case of EAS were not significantly related to
whether the physician had been a consultant. The results of multiple
logistic regression analysis for those determinants that were
predictive in the univariate analysis are shown in Box 5. Male
physicians had more often been a consultant than female physicians.
The strongest association was found for the variable "ever performed
EAS". Physicians who had performed EAS had been a consultant more
frequently than physicians who had never performed EAS.
|
|
Discussion |
We estimate that consultation with another physician in cases of
intended EAS took place almost 4000 times in the Netherlands in 1995
(see Box 6). In about 60% of consultations, the consultant was a
general practitioner. Overall, 42% of Dutch physicians had been a
consultant; 11% had been a consultant more than three times. The most
common reason why consultants advised against the performance of EAS
was the availability of alternative treatment options. Most
consultants considered that they have joint responsibility for the
final decision to grant or refuse a request for EAS. Male physicians,
general practitioners and physicians who had performed EAS had more
frequently been a consultant.
The forming of "pairs" of consultants suggests that familiarity is
very important in the choice of consultant. An earlier study found
that an important reason for choosing a consultant is accessibility
and that physicians mainly consult physicians of their own
specialty.2 A problem with these
consultations may be that the independence of the consultant with
regard to the attending physician might be threatened. This is
suggested by the fact that "consultants of a pair" more often agree
with the intended performance of EAS than other consultants,
although this difference is not statistically significant. A
possible way of assuring independence of the consultant while
safeguarding the consultant's accessibility would be to appoint
independent trained consultants who could be contacted by all
physicians in a region. Such a system was implemented for general
practitioners in Amsterdam in 1997.8 It might also be useful in
increasing the frequency of consultation, and possibly the
reporting of EAS.
The reasons given by consultants for advising against EAS all related
to the requirements for prudent practice; the fact that physicians
very rarely carry out EAS when the consultant advises against it
suggests that consultation can have an important function in
assuring the quality of this kind of medical practice. However, our
results do not show how often consultants agreed with EAS in cases in
which not all the requirements for prudent practice were met.
Nursing home physicians, neurologists, surgeons and cardiologists
are less likely than general practitioners to have been a consultant.
A possible explanation is that, for being asked to act as a consultant,
it is not only important to have carried out EAS, but also to have done so
relatively frequently: general practitioners, respiratory
specialists and specialists in internal medicine carry out EAS more
frequently than other physicians.6
In general, Dutch physicians do not have much experience in acting as a
consultant in cases of intended EAS. Of the 42% of physicians who have
been a consultant, only 27% had been a consultant more than three
times, and only 3% more than 10 times. Because acting as a consultant
differs greatly from a physician's normal working relationship with
colleagues and patients, and because the consultation concerns a
matter of life and death, it is important that consultants are
experienced and specifically trained. A training program for
consultants, in which the skills needed, knowledge about the
requirements for prudent practice, palliative care and
medicotechnical aspects of EAS are addressed, has been developed by
the Royal Dutch Medical Association. In the future it might be
advisable to permit only specifically trained physicians to act as a
consultant.
|
|
Acknowledgement |
This study was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and
Sports and the Ministry of Justice. We are indebted to Professor J Th M
van Eijk for his comments on previous versions of this manuscript.
|
|
References |
- Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association. Vision on
euthanasia. In: Euthanasia in the Netherlands. 5th ed. Utrecht 1996.
24-56.
-
Van der Wal G, van der Maas PJ. Euthanasia and other medical
decisions concerning the end of life. The Hague, the Netherlands:
Staatsuitgeverij, 1996 (in Dutch).
-
Van der Wal G, van der Maas PJ, Bosma JM, et al. Evaluation of the
notification procedure for physician-assisted death in the
Netherlands. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1706-1711.
-
Van der Wal G, Dillmann RJM. Euthanasia in the Netherlands. BMJ
1994; 308: 1346-1349.
-
Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. The role of the consultant. In: Legemaate
J, Dillmann RJM, editors. Physician-assisted death: between norm
and practice. 105-114. Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, Houten 1998 (in
Dutch).
-
Van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, Haverkate I, et al. Euthanasia,
physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving
the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995. N Engl J Med
1996; 335: 1699-1705.
-
Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994; 436-440.
-
Dillman RJM, Krug CHM, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, et al. Support and
consultation in cases of euthanasia in Amsterdam. Med
Contact 1997; 52: 743-745 (in Dutch).
(Received 7 Jul, accepted 21 Dec, 1998)
|
| Authors' details |
Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Vrije Universiteit,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen, MSc, Researcher, and
Department of General Practice, Nursing Home Medicine and Social
Medicine; Gerrit van der Wal, MD, PhD, Professor, and
Department of General Practice, Nursing Home Medicine and Social
Medicine; Piet J Kostense, PhD,
Epidemiologist/Statistician, and Department of Epidemiology and
Biostatistics.
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Paul J van der Maas, MD, PhD, Professor.
Reprints will not be available from the authors. Correspondence: B D
Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Research
in Extramural Medicine, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: B.Philipsen.EMGOATmed.vu.nl
|
Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/>
|
| |
1: Definitions
Euthanasia was defined as the administration of drugs with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life, at the patient's explicit request.
Assisted suicide was defined as the prescription or supply of drugs with the explicit intention of enabling the patient to end his or her own life.
Consultation was defined as consultation of a colleague, as stipulated in the notification procedure for EAS.
|
| | Back to text | |
2: Physicians consulted in cases of intended EAS, and number of consultations in 1995 in the Netherlands | | General practitioners | Medical specialists | | (n=124)* |
(n=207)† | |
| | Proportion§ (95% CI) |
Proportion§ (95% CI) |
| Physicians consulted | Ever consulted | 49% (40.2%-58.1%) | 30% (23.9%-36.6%) | Consulted in 1994 or 1995 | 40% (31.3%-49.1%) | 22% (16.5%-28.2%) | | Number (95% CI) |
Number (95% CI) |
| Consultations in 1995 | 2502 (2004-3086) | 1424 (1217-1631) |
| | Nursing home physicians | Total | | (n=74)‡ |
(n=405) | |
| | Proportion§ (95% CI) |
Proportion§ (95% CI) |
| Physicians consulted | Ever consulted | 19% (10.9%-30.1%) | 42% (35.6%-47.7%) | Consulted in 1994 or 1995 | 14% (6.77%-23.7%) | 32% (25.1%-40.4%) | | Number (95% CI) |
Number (95% CI) |
| Consultations in 1995 | 59 (33-98) | 3985 (3419-4551) |
|
* 4 missing observations; †1 missing observation; ‡ 6 missing observations; § Calculated by direct standardisation.7
|
|
| | Back to text | |
3: Number of consultations (ever and in 1995) by physicians | | General practitioners (n=124)* | Specialists (n=207)* | Total (n=405)* | |
| | Proportion‡ (95% CI) | Proportion‡ (95% CI) | Proportion‡ (95% CI) |
| Number of consultations ever | no consultation | 51% (41.9%-59.8%) | 69% (62.3%-75.5%) | 58% | 1 consultation | 15% (8.61%-21.4%) | 10% (5.9%-14.7%) | 13% | more than one | 34% (25.7%-42.7%) | 21% (15.1%-26.4%) | 29% | 2 or 3 | 23% | 7% | 18% | 4 or 5 | 5% | 4% | 5% | 6 to 10 | 5% | 7% | 5% | more than 10 | 1% | 2% | 1% | | Number of consultations in 1995 | no consultation | 54% (70.0%-85.0%) | 83% (77.3%-88.1%) | 80% | one or more | 46% (36.9%-54.7%) | 17% (11.9%-22.7%) | 20% | 1 consultation | 32% | 9% | 13% | 2 consultations | 9% | 3% | 4% | more than 2 | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| * General practitioners: 4 missing observations; medical specialists: 2 missing observations; total: 7 missing observations. †Includes 74 nursing home physicians. ‡ Calculated by direct standardisation.7
|
|
| | Back to text | | 4: Previous consultations between attending physician and consultant* | | General practitioners (n=40) | Specialists (n=39) | Total (n=80) |
| | Proportion‡ (95% CI) | Proportion‡ |
Proportion‡ | Attending physician previously | consulted the consultant§ | 53% (36.1%-68.5%) | 40% |
50% | Consultant previously consulted | the attending physician¶ | 46% (30.1%-62.8%) | 22% |
41% | Attending physician and consultant | previously consulted each other§ | 28% (14.6%-43.9%) | 11% | 24% |
|
CI = confidence interval. * Analysis is restricted to those physicians who had been a consultant twice or more and described their most recent consultation for EAS. †Numbers are too small for calculating confidence intervals. ‡ Calculated by direct standardisation. § Medical specialists: 4 missing observations; total: 4 missing observations. ¶General practitioners: 1 missing observation; medical specialists: 3 missing observations; total: 4 missing observations.
|
|
| | Back to text | | 5: Determinants of having ever been a consultant (n = 405)* | | Number | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
| Specialty | general practice | 119 | 1 | nursing home | medicine | 72 | 0.42 (0.20-0.87) | neurology | 34 | 0.36 (0.15-0.89) | respiratory | medicine | 35 | 0.96 (0.43-2.12) | surgery | 35 | 0.36 (0.15-0.90) | cardiology | 32 | 0.21 (0.07-0.65) | internal medicine | 64 | 0.78 (0.41-1.49) | Male | 327 | 2.14 (1.08-4.85) | Ever carried out | EAS | 166 | 3.04 (1.91-4.85) |
| * 14 missing observations. CI = confidence interval.
EAS = euthanasia or assisted suicide. |
|
| | Back to text | | 6: Confirmation of our estimate of number of consultations
From our data on how often physicians had acted as a consultant in 1994 and 1995, we estimated that almost 4000 consultations took place in 1995. This estimate is reasonably consistent with the estimate we can make based on other data.
There were 3600 granted requests for EAS, and 44% of 6100 refused requests.
Consultation occurs in 63% of acceded requests (in 10%, the attending physician consults two, and in 2% three or more, colleagues) and in 16% of refused requests.2,3
Number of consultations = 0.63 x 3600 + 0.63 x 0.1 x 3600 + 0.63 x 0.02 x 3600 x 2 + 0.16 x 0.44 x 6100 = 3015 consultations.
This estimate does not take into account the (unknown) frequency of consultation in the approximately 2625 (0.43 x 6100) requests for EAS that were not carried out because the patient died.6 |
|
| | Back to text |
|