The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare current legal procedures for notifying, controlling and evaluating (NCE-procedures) euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands, and to discuss the implications for a safe and controllable euthanasia practice. METHODS: We systematically studied and compared official documents relating to the Belgian and the Dutch NCE-procedures for euthanasia. RESULTS: In both countries, physicians are required to notify their cases to a review Committee, stimulating them to safeguard the quality of their euthanasia practice and to make societal control over the practice of euthanasia possible. However, the procedures in both countries differ. The main differences are that the Dutch notification and control procedures are more elaborate and transparent than the Belgian, and that the Belgian procedures are primarily anonymous, whereas the Dutch are not. Societal evaluation is made in both countries through the Committees' summary reports to Parliament. CONCLUSIONS: Transparent procedures like the Dutch may better facilitate societal control. Informing physicians about the law and the due care requirements for euthanasia, and systematic feedback about their medical actions are both pivotal to achieving efficient societal control and engendering the level of care needed when performing such far-reaching medical acts.

Communication on end-of-life decisions with patients wishing to die at home: the making of a guideline for GPs in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Communication with patients on end-of-life decisions is a delicate topic for which there is little guidance. AIM: To describe the development of a guideline for GPs on end-of-life communication with patients who wish to die at home, in a context where patient autonomy and euthanasia are legally regulated. DESIGN OF STUDY: A three-phase process (generation, elaboration and validation). In the generation phase, literature findings were structured and then prioritised in a focus group with GPs of a palliative care consultation network. In the elaboration phase, qualitative data on patients' and caregivers' perspectives were gathered through a focus group with next-of-kin, in-depth interviews with terminal patients, and four quality circle sessions with representatives of all constituencies. In the validation phase, the acceptability of the draft guideline was reviewed in bipolar focus groups (GPs-nurses and GPs-specialists). Finally, comments were solicited from experts by mail. SETTING: Primary home care in Belgium. SUBJECTS: Participants in this study were terminal patients (n = 17), next-of-kin of terminal patients (n = 17), GPs (n = 25), specialists (n = 3), nurses (n = 8), other caregivers (n = 2) and experts (n = 41). RESULTS: Caregivers and patients expressed a need for a comprehensive guideline on communication in end-of-life decisions. Four major communication themes were prioritised: truth telling; exploration of the patient's wishes regarding the end of life; dealing with disproportionate interventions; and dealing with requests for euthanasia in the terminal phase of life. Additional themes required special attention in the guideline: continuity of care by the GP; communication on foregoing food and fluid; and technical aspects of euthanasia. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to develop a guideline by combining the three cornerstones of evidence-based medicine: literature search, patient values and professional experience.