Connect
MJA
MJA

Consultants in cases of intended euthanasia or assisted suicide in the Netherlands

Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen and Piet J Kostense
Med J Aust 1999; 170 (8): 360-363.
Published online: 19 April 1999

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
  1. Board of the Royal Dutch Medical Association. Vision on euthanasia. In: Euthanasia in the Netherlands. 5th ed. Utrecht 1996. 24-56.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. Van der Wal G, Dillmann RJM. Euthanasia in the Netherlands. BMJ 1994; 308: 1346-1349.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994; 436-440.
  8. 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

Received 27 April 2024, accepted 27 April 2024

  • Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen
  • Piet J Kostense



Correspondence: 

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.