The role of nurses in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Issues concerning legislation and regulation with respect to the role of nurses in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide gave the Minister for Health reason to commission a study of the role of nurses in medical end-of-life decisions in hospitals, home care and nursing homes. AIM: This paper reports the findings of a study of the role of nurses in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, conducted as part of a study of the role of nurses in medical end-of-life decisions. The findings for hospitals, home care and nursing homes are described and compared. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to 1509 nurses, employed in 73 hospitals, 55 home care organisations and 63 nursing homes. 1179 responses (78.1%) were suitable for analysis. The questionnaire was pilot-tested among 106 nurses, with a response rate of 85%. RESULTS: In 37.0% of cases, the nurse was the first person with whom patients discussed their request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Consultation between physicians and nurses during the decision-making process took place quite often in hospitals (78.8%) and nursing homes (81.3%) and less frequently in home care situations (41.2%). In some cases (12.2%), nurses administered the euthanatics. CONCLUSIONS: The results show substantial differences between the intramural sector (hospitals and nursing homes) and the extramural sector (home care), which are probably linked to the organisational structure of the institutions. Consultation between physicians and nurses during the decision-making process needs improvement, particularly in home care. Some nurses had administered euthanatics, although this task is by law exclusively reserved to physicians.

Pressure and coercion in the care for the addicted: ethical perspectives.

The use of coercive measures in the care for the addicted has changed over the past 20 years. Laws that have adopted the "dangerousness" criterion in order to secure patients' rights to non-intervention are increasingly subjected to critique as many authors plead for wider dangerousness criteria. One of the most salient moral issues at stake is whether addicts who are at risk of causing danger to themselves should be involuntarily admitted and/or treated. In this article, it is argued that the dilemma between coercion on the one hand and abandonment on the other cannot be analysed without differentiated perspectives on the key notions that are used in these debates. The ambiguity these notions carry within care practice indicates that the conflict between the prevention of danger and respect for autonomy is not as sharp as the legal systems seem to imply. Some coercive measures need not be interpreted as an infringement of autonomy--rather, they should be interpreted as a way to provide good care.

[A case of fraud in a neurological pharmaceutical clinical trial]. / Een geval van fraude bij farmaceutisch onderzoek in de neurologie.

This paper describes the laborious and lengthy path to clarification and disclosure in a case of fraud in a neurological pharmaceutical clinical trial in the Netherlands. A Dutch neurologist was suspected of irregularities within the context of the 'European stroke prevention study 2' (ESPS-2), a multicentre study into medicinal prophylaxis in patients who had suffered a stroke. The Netherlands Society of Neurology (NVN) established an independent inquiry committee for further investigation of the case. The identity of 425 of the 438 patients (97%) included in the trial by the neurologist could be retrieved. The majority of these patients were known to the neurologist with cerebral infarct. For a sample of 115 patients, the general practitioners (GPs) were contacted by means of a questionnaire. Ninety percent of the responding GPs were unaware of their patients' participation in the pharmaceutical clinical trial. A total of forty patients were asked by their GP about participation: 36 (90%; 95%-CI: 76-97) indicated that they had not participated in the trial, and 4 could not remember. The committee concluded that the neurologist had committed fraud, in the sense that he had used the names of existing patients without these patients actually being enrolled in the study. The report of the independent committee was not made public; the committee and the NVN board differed in opinion on the interpretation and implications of the agreements regarding this subject. Following prolonged legal action, the regional Disciplinary Board suspended the neurologist from practice for one year and the court of law sentenced him to 180 days imprisonment or a fee of 130,000 Euro. Based on the experience gained from this case, recommendations in case of suspicion of fraud are discussed, such as the timely appointment of an independent inquiry committee and the establishment of unambiguous agreements regarding the disclosure of the results of the investigation. Possible legal implications should be considered in advance by the organisations involved; statutes should provide regulations for procedural rules. In the Netherlands there now exists a National Body for Scientific Integrity and a committee for the Scientific Integrity of Healthcare Research to prevent scientific misconduct and to stimulate reporting and appropriate handling of this problem.