In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalized in 2002, we conducted a follow-up study in 2007 to two largescale nationwide surveys on medical end-of-life practices that had been conducted in 1998 and 2001. This follow-up study enabled us to investigate differences in the frequency and characteristics of these practices before and after the enactment of the law.
One out of two euthanasia cases is reported to the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee. Most non-reporting physicians do not perceive their act as euthanasia. Countries debating legalisation of euthanasia should simultaneously consider developing a policy facilitating the due care and reporting obligations of physicians.
In de eerste drie maanden van dit jaar werden in België 445 aangiften gedaan van euthanasie. ‘Een opvallend cijfer’, zegt professor Wim Distelmans (VUB), voorzitter van de Federale Commissie Euthanasie.
This article is concerned with the practice of euthanasia in Belgium. Background information is provided; then major developments that have taken place since the enactment of the Belgian Act on Euthanasia are analysed. Concerns are raised about (1) the changing role of physicians and imposition on nurses to perform euthanasia; (2) the physicians' confusion and lack of understanding of the Act on Euthanasia; (3) inadequate consultation with an independent expert; (4) lack of notification of euthanasia cases, and (5) organ transplantations of euthanized patients. Some suggestions designed to improve the situation and prevent abuse are offered.
This article examines the reporting requirements in four jurisdictions in which assisted dying (euthanasia and/or assisted suicide) is legally regulated: the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon and Switzerland. These jurisdictions were chosen because each had a substantial amount of empirical evidence available. We assess the available empirical evidence on reporting and what it tells us about the effectiveness of such requirements in encouraging reporting. We also look at the nature of requirements on regulatory bodies to refer cases not meeting the legal criteria to either prosecutorial or disciplinary authorities. We assess the evidence available on the outcomes of reported cases, including the rate of referral and the ultimate disposition of referred cases.