[Increasing independence of a resident in training: lessons in disciplinary law]. / Toenemende zelfstandigheid van een aios.

Objective To explore how the disciplinary board allocates responsibility between the resident in training and the supervisor. Design Case law analysis. Method All published disciplinary judgments containing the term 'resident in training' from January 1, 2010, to April 1, 2020 on www.tuchtrecht.overheid.nl were analyzed. Results 116 law cases involving 128 complaints were examined. The disciplinary boards' considerations could be distinguished into four groups: situational characteristics, the resident's competence, the extent and quality of supervision, and information provision. Conclusion The disciplinary boards allocates responsibility between the resident in training and the supervisor in the context of the specific complaint and situation. It is therefore important that the general rules and regulations regarding supervision of residents are clearly outlined and documented, including their momentary alignment. In addition, the hospital has a general responsibility to inform patients about the implications of training residents while providing healthcare.

Case report: Organ donation after euthanasia for psychiatric suffering: some of the practical and ethical lessons Martijn taught us.

Euthanasia in psychiatric patients presents unique challenges, especially when combined with organ donation. In this article, the hurdles psychiatric patients might encounter after expressing their wish for organ donation after euthanasia, are discussed and illustrated by the case of Martijn, a 45-year-old psychiatric patient who altruistically donated his organs after euthanasia. Hospital and physician-related factors, including caution in determination of mental capacity, consideration of conflicting interests, and healthcare staff stress are discussed as impediments to organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in psychiatric patients. The primary objective of this article is to raise awareness among psychiatrists regarding the fact that although the combination of euthanasia and organ donation is an uncommonly performed procedure, it is frequently requested by psychiatric patients. In conclusion, the article advocates for a nuanced approach, respecting patients' altruistic wishes while at the same time addressing challenges associated with ODE in psychiatric suffering. Where possible, and within the current medical, ethical and legal boundaries, the importance of facilitating organ donation without unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of competent psychiatric patients seeking euthanasia is emphasized. The topic calls, for example, for further qualitative research to understand the stakeholders' perspectives to determine the perceived possibilities on the one hand and boundaries on the other.

Organ donation following medical assistance in dying, Part II: a scoping review of existing processes and procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to collate and summarize the current literature on what is known about organ donation following medical assistance in dying (MAiD). For this second part of a 2-part scoping review, the focus is on the existing procedures and processes for organ donation following MAiD. INTRODUCTION: Organ donation following MAiD is a novel and contentious issue worldwide. To give direction for future research and initiatives, a comprehensive understanding of the available evidence of existing procedures and processes for organ donation following MAiD is needed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: For this review, the population of interest included all individuals who underwent organ donation following MAiD; the concept was defined as procedures and processes involved in organ donation after MAiD; and the context was reports of organ donation following MAiD at home or in any health care setting worldwide. We considered quantitative and qualitative studies, text and opinion papers, gray literature, and unpublished material provided by stakeholders. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in line with JBI methodology. Published studies were retrieved from MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, and Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost). Gray and unpublished literature included reports from websites and organ donation organizations in Canada, Belgium, and The Netherlands. Two independent reviewers screened all reports (both title and abstract, and full text) against the predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and completed a content analysis. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved through discussion or with another reviewer. RESULTS: We included 121 documents across parts I and II, and we report on 107 documents in this second part. The majority of the 107 documents were discussion papers, published in English, and in Canada from 2019 to 2021. In the content analysis, we identified 5 major categories regarding existing procedures and processes of organ donation following MAiD: i) clinical pathways for organ donation following MAiD; ii) organ donation following MAiD and the donor; iii) clinical practice tools for organ donation following MAiD; iv) education and support for health care providers involved in organ donation following MAiD; and v) health care providers' roles and perceptions during organ donation following MAiD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review can be used to provide support and guidance for improvements in procedures and processes, as well as a rich resource for countries currently planning to establish programs for organ donation after MAiD.

Organ donation following medical assistance in dying, Part I: a scoping review of legal and ethical aspects.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to collate and summarize the current literature on what is known about organ donation following medical assistance in dying (MAiD). Additionally, for this first part of a 2-part scoping review, the focus is on legal and ethical considerations regarding organ donation following MAiD. INTRODUCTION: Organ donation following MAiD is a relatively new procedure that has sparked much debate and discussion. A comprehensive investigation into the legal and ethical aspects related to organ donation following MAiD is needed to inform the development of safe and ethical practices. INCLUSION CRITERIA: In this review, we included documents that investigated legal and/or ethical issues related to individuals who underwent organ donation following MAiD in any setting (eg, hospital or home) worldwide. We considered quantitative and qualitative studies, text and opinion papers, gray literature, and unpublished material provided by stakeholders. METHODS: This scoping review followed JBI methodology. Published studies were retrieved from databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, and Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost). Gray and unpublished literature included reports from organ donation organizations in Canada, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Two independent reviewers screened all reports (both by title and abstract and by full text) against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and completed a content analysis. Disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved through discussions among the reviewers and the lead reviewer. RESULTS: We included 121 documents for parts I and II of our scoping review, 89 of which are included in part I. The majority of the 89 documents were discussion papers published in English and in Canada from 2019 to 2021. In the content analysis, we identified 4 major categories regarding ethical and legal aspects of organ donation following MAiD: i) legal definitions, legislation, and guidelines; ii) ethics, dilemmas, and consensus; iii) consent and objection; and iv) public perceptions. We identified the main legislation regulating the practices of organ donation following MAiD in countries where both procedures are permitted, the many ethical debates surrounding this topic (eg, eligibility criteria for organ donation and MAiD, disclosure of donors' and recipients' information, directed organ donation, death determination in organ donation following MAiD, ethical safeguards for organ donation following MAiD), as well as the public perceptions of this process. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation following MAiD has raised many legal and ethical concerns regarding establishing safeguards to protect patients and families. Despite the ongoing debates around the risks and benefits of this combined procedure, when patients who request MAiD want to donate their organs, this option can help fulfill their last wishes and diminish their suffering, which should be the main reasons to offer organ donation following MAiD.

Directed Organ Donation After Euthanasia.

Organ donation after euthanasia is performed in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Spain. Directed deceased organ donation is currently possible under strict conditions in a limited number of countries, while it is currently not possible to opt for directed donation following euthanasia. While organ donation after euthanasia is a deceased donation procedure, directed organ donation after euthanasia could be seen as a deceased donation procedure with a living donation consent process. Therefore, directed organ donation after euthanasia is feasible on medical and ethical grounds. Strict safeguards should be in place, including the requirement of a pre-existing familial or personal relationship with the proposed recipient, without any evidence of coercion or financial gain.

Reply to reaction on 'Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy - case report'.

We would like to respond to the comment we received from our colleagues on our case report about organ donation after euthanasia starting at home. We reply to their statements on medical and legal aspects, and provide more information on our view of informed consent.

[Cross-border healthcare: EU citizens as patients]. / Grensoverschrijdende zorg: EU-burgers als patiënt.

With the free movement of people within the European Union (EU), it occurs that EU citizens need healthcare in and different country, other than their country of origin. Identification of patients is important, and the EU is currently implementing a digital Patient Summary to provide physicians with essential information concerning an European patient. Physicians should be aware that the obligation concerning informed consent carries extra weight for patients with a language barrier. A professional interpreter can facilitate bridging this linguistic barrier. All patients who die within the Netherlands are subject to Dutch legislation on organ donation. The reimbursement of care is regulated within the EU by Regulations (No 883/2004 and No 987/2009) and the Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. In principle, unplanned care is always reimbursed, whereas planned clinical care requires permission from the patient's health insurer.

Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands.

Euthanasia based on psychiatric suffering, followed by subsequent organ donation, is considered medically and legally permissible in the Netherlands. Although organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in patients suffering from unbearable psychiatric illness is performed, it is not specifically addressed in the Dutch guideline on organ donation after euthanasia, and national data on ODE in psychiatric patients have not yet been published. In this article, the preliminary results of the 10-year Dutch case series of psychiatric patients who choose ODE are presented and potential factors influencing opportunities for donation in this population are discussed. We conclude that further future in-depth qualitative exploration of ODE in patients suffering from psychiatric illness and its associated ethical and practical dilemmas, including the consequences for the patient and their family and healthcare professionals, will be important to help make sense of potential barriers to donation for people undergoing euthanasia as a result of psychiatric suffering.

Outcomes from organ donation following medical assistance in dying: A scoping review.

AIM: To collate and summarize the current international literature on the transplant recipient outcomes of organs from Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) donors, as well as the actual and potential impact of organ donation following MAiD on the donation and transplantation system. BACKGROUND: The provision of organ donation following MAiD can impact the donation and transplantation system, as well as potential recipients of organs from the MAiD donor, therefore a comprehensive understanding of the potential and actual impact of organ donation after MAiD on the donation and transplantation systems is needed. DESIGN: Scoping review using the JBI framework. METHODS: We searched for published (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete), and unpublished literature (organ donation organization websites worldwide). Included references discussed the actual and potential impact of organ donation following MAiD on the donation and transplantation system. All references were screened, extracted and analysed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We included 78 references in this review and our finding were summarized across three categories: (1) Impact in the donor pool: (2) statistics on organ donation following MAiD; and (3) potential and actual impact of MAiD on the donation and transplant system. CONCLUSIONS: The potential impact of the MAiD donor on the transplant waiting list is relatively small as this process is still rare, however, due to the current organ shortage worldwide the contribution of this procedure should not be disregarded. Additionally, despite being limited, the existing research provided scanty evidence that organs retrieved from MAiD donors are associated with satisfactory graft function and survival rates and that outcomes from transplant recipients are comparable to those of organs from donation following brain death and may be better than those of organs from other types of donation after circulatory determined death. Still, further studies are required for comprehensive and reliable evidence.

Burden of organ donation after euthanasia in patients with psychiatric disorder.

Organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) is rarely performed but the number has gradually increased over the years. It has been suggested that the preparatory investigations for organ donation parallel to the medical-legal procedures for euthanasia may be too much of a burden for the patients and their relatives. Furthermore, dying in an intensive care unit might contribute to this burden. Based on two patients who were granted euthanasia based on a psychiatric disorder, we show that the actual burden may be minimal for some patients and their relatives and may even be helpful in their process of euthanasia. Therefore, we propose that providing patients with information about donation of organs after euthanasia may be important to incorporate early in the medical-legal process of euthanasia instead of waiting for the patient to bring up organ donation, as currently advised in the Dutch guideline for ODE.

[Professional caregivers as civilian first responders in prehospital cardiac arrest]. / Burgerhulp van professionals bij reanimatie buiten het ziekenhuis.

The chance of survival from a prehospital cardiac arrest has increased enormously in recent years thanks to the efforts of civilian first responders. They can start CPR and possibly defibrillate while waiting for the ambulance. These civilian first responders regularly include professional caregivers who can provide advanced life support (ALS) together with ambulance personnel. This article describes the opportunities and challenges, and discusses competence and ability, the use of expertise, and crew resource management (CRM) to ensure that the available knowledge and skills are managed in the right direction. This can further improve the quality of patient care and thus increase the chance of survival.

Dividing line between organ donation and euthanasia in a combined procedure.

In this article, we want to reply to the recent article by Buturovic, to be able to correct some statements and allegations about this combined procedure. Organ donation after euthanasia is an extremely difficult procedure from an ethical point of view. On the one hand, we see a suffering patient who wants to die but who also wants to make an altruistic effort to donate his organs. On the other hand, we visualise a patient in need of an organ but who is wary of the fact that someone else needs to die in order to potentially receive a transplant organ. Healthcare professionals seem to walk a tightrope when balancing between the interests of the patients at these two extremes: while facilitating the dying patient's last wish on the one hand and abiding by all regulations regarding donation and transplantation on the other. Yet, these physicians, nurses and transplant coordinators do their utmost best to keep a strict line between euthanasia and organ donation, to avoid any external pressure on the patient, and to respect his autonomy. They really make an utmost attempt to make the process bearable for the donating patient. However, undeniably the patient who is about to undergo organ donation after euthanasia is nevertheless confronted with dozens of feelings and thoughts. However, this does not imply that procedural safeguards are failing to disentangle organ donation from euthanasia.

Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy.

BACKGROUND: A patient who fulfils the due diligence requirements for euthanasia, and is medically suitable, is able to donate his organs after euthanasia in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. Since 2012, more than 70 patients have undergone this combined procedure in the Netherlands. Even though all patients who undergo euthanasia are suffering hopelessly and unbearably, some of these patients are nevertheless willing to help others in need of an organ. Organ donation after euthanasia is a so-called donation after circulatory death (DCD), Maastricht category III procedure, which takes place following cardiac arrest, comparable to donation after withdrawal of life sustaining therapy in critically ill patients. To minimize the period of organ ischemia, the patient is transported to the operating room immediately after the legally mandated no-touch period of 5 min following circulatory arrest. This means that the organ donation procedure following euthanasia must take place in the hospital, which appears to be insurmountable to many patients who are willing to donate, since they already spent a lot of time in the hospital. CASE PRESENTATION: This article describes the procedure of organ donation after euthanasia starting at home (ODAEH) following anesthesia in a former health care professional suffering from multiple system atrophy. This case is unique for at least two reasons. He spent his last conscious hours surrounded by his family at home, after which he underwent general anaesthesia and was intubated, before being transported to the hospital for euthanasia and organ donation. In addition, the patient explicitly requested the euthanasia to be performed in the preparation room, next to the operating room, in order to limit the period of organ ischemia due to transport time from the intensive care unit to the operating room. The medical, legal and ethical considerations related to this illustrative case are subsequently discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation after euthanasia is a pure act of altruism. This combined procedure can also be performed after the patient has been anesthetized at home and during transportation to the hospital.

Ex Situ Perfusion of Hearts Donated After Euthanasia: A Promising Contribution to Heart Transplantation.

Organ donation after euthanasia is performed in an increasing number of countries. In this donation after circulatory death procedure, it has not been possible to donate the heart. Recent literature, however, reports positive results of heart donation after circulatory death. Therefore, patients who donate organs following euthanasia might be suitable candidates for heart donation. We want to confirm this assumption by sharing the results of 2 cases of heart donation following euthanasia with ex situ subnormothermic heart preservation. Our aim is to raise awareness of the potential of heart donation following euthanasia for both clinical transplantation and research. METHODS: The data of 2 consecutive heart donations following euthanasia were collected prospectively. Informed consent was obtained from the patients themselves for heart donation for research purposes. An acellular oxygenated subnormothermic machine perfusion strategy was used to preserve both donor hearts. Subsequently, the hearts were evaluated on a normothermic perfusion machine using a balloon in the left ventricle. RESULTS: Heart donation following euthanasia was feasible without significant changes in existing retrieval protocols. Duration of machine perfusion preservation was 408 and 432 minutes, for heart 1 and 2, respectively. For heart 1, developed pressure (Pdev) was 119 mm Hg, maximal rate of pressure rise (dP/dtmax), and fall (dP/dtmin) were 1524 mm Hg/s and -1057 mm Hg/s, respectively. For heart 2, Pdev was 142 mm Hg, dP/dtmax was 1098 mm Hg/s, and dP/dtmin was -802 mm Hg/s. CONCLUSIONS: Hearts donated following euthanasia are highly valuable for research purposes and can have sufficient quality to be transplanted. With the implementation of ex situ heart perfusion, patients who are to donate their organs following euthanasia should also be able to donate their hearts. The complex combination of euthanasia and heart donation is ethically sound and surgically feasible and can contribute to shortening the heart transplant waiting list.