Was an elderly woman forcibly euthanized in the Netherlands?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
A disturbing story appeared on my news feed this week,
Elderly Woman Forcibly Euthanized
The article says that in the Netherlands an elderly woman with dementia was euthanized against her will.
But this article has come from the DailyWire, an extreme right wing "news" outlet. And with no name given it's difficult to verify from a trustworthy news source.
Is any part of this article accurate?
mortality netherlands
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
A disturbing story appeared on my news feed this week,
Elderly Woman Forcibly Euthanized
The article says that in the Netherlands an elderly woman with dementia was euthanized against her will.
But this article has come from the DailyWire, an extreme right wing "news" outlet. And with no name given it's difficult to verify from a trustworthy news source.
Is any part of this article accurate?
mortality netherlands
1
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
1
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
1
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
2
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
1
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
A disturbing story appeared on my news feed this week,
Elderly Woman Forcibly Euthanized
The article says that in the Netherlands an elderly woman with dementia was euthanized against her will.
But this article has come from the DailyWire, an extreme right wing "news" outlet. And with no name given it's difficult to verify from a trustworthy news source.
Is any part of this article accurate?
mortality netherlands
A disturbing story appeared on my news feed this week,
Elderly Woman Forcibly Euthanized
The article says that in the Netherlands an elderly woman with dementia was euthanized against her will.
But this article has come from the DailyWire, an extreme right wing "news" outlet. And with no name given it's difficult to verify from a trustworthy news source.
Is any part of this article accurate?
mortality netherlands
edited 22 hours ago
Oddthinkingâ¦
95.1k27397497
95.1k27397497
asked 22 hours ago
Coomie
3,95273571
3,95273571
1
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
1
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
1
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
2
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
1
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
1
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
1
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
2
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
1
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
1
1
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
1
1
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
1
1
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
2
2
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
1
1
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" (Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg) over this case.
- 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch)
Detailed Decision (Dutch)
The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded.
The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report:
[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]
The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point where the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted.
[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk âÂÂwanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomenâÂÂ, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) âÂÂnog enigszins
wilsbekwaam wasâ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen âÂÂvrijwilligâÂÂ
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]
On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point.
[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt âÂÂwanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor achtâ en âÂÂop mijn
verzoekâÂÂ. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]
Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. The moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia is contains ambiguities.
The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report:
[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]
The college admits that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. This does not, however, mean that the defendant had no more obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life using a sedative in her coffee.
The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name.
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
32
down vote
Oddthinking's answer is quite complete, but it does not quite address the allegation by the Daily Wire that " She was given coffee with a sedative in it, but she refused to drink it â and then struggled as the doctor tried to kill her. She fought so fiercely that the doctor ordered her own family to physically hold her down, and she was forcibly euthanized." Daily Wire
The Decision gives a detailed description under point 2.24, parts of which I will translate. Warning: Below are detailed descriptions of medical interventions with fatal result. Reading and translating this I found distressing, but if we're going to discuss this (I mean 'we' as in 'humankind') we should know the facts.
Present at the euthanasia were the husband, sister, daughter and son-in-law of the patient. Also present were a physician ("arts") and the defendant who is a physician specializing in elderly care ("specialist ouderengeneeskunde").
To start with, the physician added 15 mg midazolam to the patient's coffee, as discussed with the family, but not with the patient herself.
"Toen na ongeveer 3âÂÂ4 uur na de inname van 15 mg midazolam patiënte
nog wakker was, heeft verweerster haar 10 mg midazolam subcutaan
toegediend. Nadat patiënte in een toestand van verlaagd bewustzijn was
geraakt, heeft een ambulancebroeder een infuus bij patiënte
ingebracht, hetgeen ongeveer 15 minuten heeft geduurd omdat patiënte
moeilijk te prikken was. Patiënte heeft hierbij nauwelijks gereageerd
op deze pijnprikkels, maar heeft op enig moment wel een terugtrekkende
beweging gemaakt."
When, after about three quarters of an hour after taking the 15 mg midazolam, the patient was still awake, the defendant administered 10 mg of midazolam subcutaneously. After the patient entered a state of lowered consciousness, and ambulance medic started an IV, which took about 15 minutes because it was hard to find a vein. The patient hardly reacted to these painful stimuli, although she did at one point move away from them.
"Verweerster heeft, gelet op het ontbreken van pijnprikkels bij de
inbrenging van het infuus, geen noodzaak gezien om (nog) de
pijnstiller lidocaïne te geven. Vervolgens heeft verweerster 2000 mg
thiopental intraveneus toegediend. Tijdens het inspuiten van de
thiopental is patiënte omhoog gekomen en vervolgens door haar familie
teruggelegd. Verweerster heeft toen de rest van de thiopental
toegediend. Nadat verweerster had vastgesteld dat patiënte niet meer
reageerde op aanspreken, niet ademde en geen wimperreflex had, heeft
verweerster 150 mg Rocuronium intraveneus toegediend. Zeven minuten
later heeft verweerster de dood vastgesteld door middel van
pupilcontrole."
Taking into account the lack of pain stimuli, the defendant did not think it necessary to administer lidocaine. Next, the defendant injected 2000 mg thiopental intravenously. While the thiopental was being injected, the patient rose up and was laid down by her family. The defendant then administered the rest of the thiopental. After the defendant established that the patient no longer responded to speech, did not breathe and had no eye-lash-reflex, the defendant administered 150 mg Rocuronium intravenously. Seven minutes later, the defendant pronounced death by way of the pupil control.
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
Something that isn't discussed in both answers here is that in her demented state, she did express herself.
From the decision, point 2.13, most recent 3 quotes, translated:
Dutch:
âÂÂ2 april 2016 (â¦) mw. heeft lange tijd voor de camera gepraat, geklaagd en nu en dan
gehuild en minimaal 2x gezegd dat zij dood wilde. (â¦)
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) Gesprek in de hal (â¦)Mw. vertelt dat zij alles heel naar vindt en dat ze
haar beter op kunnen knopen aan de deur (stelt vast dat die te laag is)âÂÂ
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) F [College: verzorgende] zegt mij het volgende: (â¦) Mw. was aan het
huilen. (â¦) âÂÂik denk dat ik binnenkort dood ga. Ik kan niet meer. Ik kan dit gewoon niet meer
aan. (â¦)âÂÂ
Translation:
2nd of april 2016. (â¦) Ms. has talked in front of the camera for a long time, complained, cried now and then and said at least twice she wanted to die. (â¦)
9th of april 2016 (â¦) Conversation in the hall(â¦) Ms. tells that everything's really unpleasant and that they could better hang her on the door (notes that the door is too low).
9th of april 2016 [Caregiver] tells me the following: (...) Ms. was crying. (...) "I think I'm dying soon. I can't anymore. I just can't handle it anymore (...).
There are many more quotes like this.
In the end, determining the will of a patient suffering from dementia is not always possible. But considering these statements, and the previous written declaration, I certainly wouldn't call this forcibly.
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" (Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg) over this case.
- 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch)
Detailed Decision (Dutch)
The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded.
The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report:
[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]
The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point where the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted.
[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk âÂÂwanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomenâÂÂ, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) âÂÂnog enigszins
wilsbekwaam wasâ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen âÂÂvrijwilligâÂÂ
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]
On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point.
[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt âÂÂwanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor achtâ en âÂÂop mijn
verzoekâÂÂ. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]
Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. The moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia is contains ambiguities.
The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report:
[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]
The college admits that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. This does not, however, mean that the defendant had no more obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life using a sedative in her coffee.
The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name.
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
62
down vote
A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" (Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg) over this case.
- 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch)
Detailed Decision (Dutch)
The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded.
The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report:
[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]
The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point where the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted.
[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk âÂÂwanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomenâÂÂ, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) âÂÂnog enigszins
wilsbekwaam wasâ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen âÂÂvrijwilligâÂÂ
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]
On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point.
[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt âÂÂwanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor achtâ en âÂÂop mijn
verzoekâÂÂ. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]
Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. The moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia is contains ambiguities.
The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report:
[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]
The college admits that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. This does not, however, mean that the defendant had no more obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life using a sedative in her coffee.
The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name.
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
62
down vote
up vote
62
down vote
A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" (Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg) over this case.
- 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch)
Detailed Decision (Dutch)
The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded.
The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report:
[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]
The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point where the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted.
[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk âÂÂwanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomenâÂÂ, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) âÂÂnog enigszins
wilsbekwaam wasâ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen âÂÂvrijwilligâÂÂ
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]
On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point.
[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt âÂÂwanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor achtâ en âÂÂop mijn
verzoekâÂÂ. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]
Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. The moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia is contains ambiguities.
The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report:
[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]
The college admits that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. This does not, however, mean that the defendant had no more obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life using a sedative in her coffee.
The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name.
A physician in the Netherlands was recently reprimanded by an "Inspectorate" for the "Disciplinary Offices for Healthcare" (Tuchtcolleges voor de gezondheidszorg) over this case.
- 24-Jul-2018 Press Release (Dutch)
Detailed Decision (Dutch)
The women suffered dementia, and had earlier written a declaration of her desire to be euthanized. However, the Inspectorate concluded that the written declaration was not clear enough, and the patient did not give unambiguous and consistent statements about wanting to be euthanized - sometimes she wanted to die, sometimes she wanted to wait - so the physician should not have proceeded.
The main point that made the Inspectorate conclude ambiguity is given in point 5.9 of the detailed report:
[..] Het probleem met deze euthanasieverklaringen is echter dat deze
verklaringen tegenstrijdigheden bevatten ten aanzien van het moment
waarop patiënte de levensbeëindiging uitgevoerd zou willen zien. [..]
The problem with these declaration of euthanasia, however, is that they contain contradictions regarding the point where the patient wants the euthanasia to be conducted.
[..] Enerzijds lijkt het moment duidelijk âÂÂwanneer patiënte in een
verpleegtehuis voor demente bejaarden moet worden opgenomenâÂÂ, maar
daar staat tegenover dat patiënte het moment waarop zij (in de
terminologie van de eerste dementieverklaring) âÂÂnog enigszins
wilsbekwaam wasâ voorbij heeft laten gaan en toen geen âÂÂvrijwilligâÂÂ
verzoek heeft gedaan. [..]
On the one hand, the moment seems clearly defined "when the patient has to be admitted to a nursing home", but this is placed against the fact that she let the moment where (using the terminology of her first declaration) she was still 'somewhat lucid' slide and did not make the voluntary request to die at that point.
[..] Hier komt bij dat de (van toepassing zijnde) tweede dementieverklaring
inhoudt âÂÂwanneer ik daar zelf de tijd rijp voor achtâ en âÂÂop mijn
verzoekâÂÂ. Hierin wordt dus nog een tijdselement en een persoonlijke
keuze ingebouwd. Niet dus het moment van opname in een verpleeghuis is
bepalend, maar het eigen (nog te uiten) verzoek van patiënte. De
schriftelijke euthanasieverklaring, met dementieclausule, is dus niet
eenduidig en bevat onduidelijkheden. [..]
Added on top is the (applicable) second declaration of euthanasia which states 'when I myself consider the time ripe' and 'at my request'. This builds in a time element and personal choice. The moment of admission to nursing home is not the defining moment, but the (yet to be articulated) personal request. The written declaration of euthanasia is contains ambiguities.
The second main issue the Inspectorate has, is the fact that the physician had not communicated to the patient that the procedure would be initiated. From paragraph 5.13 in the detailed report:
[..] Het College onderkent dat communicatie met patiënte op cognitief
niveau niet meer tot de mogelijkheden behoorde. Dit betekent echter
niet dat verweerster was ontslagen van de verplichting om ten minste
te proberen om met patiënte te praten over het concrete voornemen om
haar leven te beëindigen en daarbij een slaapmiddel in haar koffie te
doen. [..]
The college admits that cognitive communication with the patient was no longer possible. This does not, however, mean that the defendant had no more obligation to at least attempt to talk to the patient regarding the concrete intention to end her life using a sedative in her coffee.
The case was anonymised, which explains why the newspaper reports did not include the patient's name.
edited 11 hours ago
DonFusili
1035
1035
answered 21 hours ago
Oddthinkingâ¦
95.1k27397497
95.1k27397497
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
1
1
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
This is the one where they had to hold her down, no?
â Orangesandlemons
18 hours ago
11
11
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons you have to do that sometimes with patients with dementia.
â mathreadler
17 hours ago
1
1
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
The short of it is that when there's reason to suspect someone's severely violated their healer's oath, they get sent in. Medical equivalent of the Bar Association, although they can also recommend (in extreme cases) criminal charges to be filed.
â Shadur
14 hours ago
3
3
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
I'm not sure... this answer misses quite a bit of the nuance given in the detailed decision. The declaration was 'clear enough', but based on the patient's own prediction regarding her final behaviour, which didn't match her eventual symptoms since the prediction was based on what she had seen her own mother evolve. And the main point of concern was that the physician hadn't told the patient that the drug sequence would be started with a drug mixed into her coffee.
â DonFusili
13 hours ago
3
3
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
@DonFusili: I am going by a poor translation of the press release; would really appreciate any edits you can make to clear this up (or post a competing answer if you want the rep).
â Oddthinkingâ¦
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
32
down vote
Oddthinking's answer is quite complete, but it does not quite address the allegation by the Daily Wire that " She was given coffee with a sedative in it, but she refused to drink it â and then struggled as the doctor tried to kill her. She fought so fiercely that the doctor ordered her own family to physically hold her down, and she was forcibly euthanized." Daily Wire
The Decision gives a detailed description under point 2.24, parts of which I will translate. Warning: Below are detailed descriptions of medical interventions with fatal result. Reading and translating this I found distressing, but if we're going to discuss this (I mean 'we' as in 'humankind') we should know the facts.
Present at the euthanasia were the husband, sister, daughter and son-in-law of the patient. Also present were a physician ("arts") and the defendant who is a physician specializing in elderly care ("specialist ouderengeneeskunde").
To start with, the physician added 15 mg midazolam to the patient's coffee, as discussed with the family, but not with the patient herself.
"Toen na ongeveer 3âÂÂ4 uur na de inname van 15 mg midazolam patiënte
nog wakker was, heeft verweerster haar 10 mg midazolam subcutaan
toegediend. Nadat patiënte in een toestand van verlaagd bewustzijn was
geraakt, heeft een ambulancebroeder een infuus bij patiënte
ingebracht, hetgeen ongeveer 15 minuten heeft geduurd omdat patiënte
moeilijk te prikken was. Patiënte heeft hierbij nauwelijks gereageerd
op deze pijnprikkels, maar heeft op enig moment wel een terugtrekkende
beweging gemaakt."
When, after about three quarters of an hour after taking the 15 mg midazolam, the patient was still awake, the defendant administered 10 mg of midazolam subcutaneously. After the patient entered a state of lowered consciousness, and ambulance medic started an IV, which took about 15 minutes because it was hard to find a vein. The patient hardly reacted to these painful stimuli, although she did at one point move away from them.
"Verweerster heeft, gelet op het ontbreken van pijnprikkels bij de
inbrenging van het infuus, geen noodzaak gezien om (nog) de
pijnstiller lidocaïne te geven. Vervolgens heeft verweerster 2000 mg
thiopental intraveneus toegediend. Tijdens het inspuiten van de
thiopental is patiënte omhoog gekomen en vervolgens door haar familie
teruggelegd. Verweerster heeft toen de rest van de thiopental
toegediend. Nadat verweerster had vastgesteld dat patiënte niet meer
reageerde op aanspreken, niet ademde en geen wimperreflex had, heeft
verweerster 150 mg Rocuronium intraveneus toegediend. Zeven minuten
later heeft verweerster de dood vastgesteld door middel van
pupilcontrole."
Taking into account the lack of pain stimuli, the defendant did not think it necessary to administer lidocaine. Next, the defendant injected 2000 mg thiopental intravenously. While the thiopental was being injected, the patient rose up and was laid down by her family. The defendant then administered the rest of the thiopental. After the defendant established that the patient no longer responded to speech, did not breathe and had no eye-lash-reflex, the defendant administered 150 mg Rocuronium intravenously. Seven minutes later, the defendant pronounced death by way of the pupil control.
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
32
down vote
Oddthinking's answer is quite complete, but it does not quite address the allegation by the Daily Wire that " She was given coffee with a sedative in it, but she refused to drink it â and then struggled as the doctor tried to kill her. She fought so fiercely that the doctor ordered her own family to physically hold her down, and she was forcibly euthanized." Daily Wire
The Decision gives a detailed description under point 2.24, parts of which I will translate. Warning: Below are detailed descriptions of medical interventions with fatal result. Reading and translating this I found distressing, but if we're going to discuss this (I mean 'we' as in 'humankind') we should know the facts.
Present at the euthanasia were the husband, sister, daughter and son-in-law of the patient. Also present were a physician ("arts") and the defendant who is a physician specializing in elderly care ("specialist ouderengeneeskunde").
To start with, the physician added 15 mg midazolam to the patient's coffee, as discussed with the family, but not with the patient herself.
"Toen na ongeveer 3âÂÂ4 uur na de inname van 15 mg midazolam patiënte
nog wakker was, heeft verweerster haar 10 mg midazolam subcutaan
toegediend. Nadat patiënte in een toestand van verlaagd bewustzijn was
geraakt, heeft een ambulancebroeder een infuus bij patiënte
ingebracht, hetgeen ongeveer 15 minuten heeft geduurd omdat patiënte
moeilijk te prikken was. Patiënte heeft hierbij nauwelijks gereageerd
op deze pijnprikkels, maar heeft op enig moment wel een terugtrekkende
beweging gemaakt."
When, after about three quarters of an hour after taking the 15 mg midazolam, the patient was still awake, the defendant administered 10 mg of midazolam subcutaneously. After the patient entered a state of lowered consciousness, and ambulance medic started an IV, which took about 15 minutes because it was hard to find a vein. The patient hardly reacted to these painful stimuli, although she did at one point move away from them.
"Verweerster heeft, gelet op het ontbreken van pijnprikkels bij de
inbrenging van het infuus, geen noodzaak gezien om (nog) de
pijnstiller lidocaïne te geven. Vervolgens heeft verweerster 2000 mg
thiopental intraveneus toegediend. Tijdens het inspuiten van de
thiopental is patiënte omhoog gekomen en vervolgens door haar familie
teruggelegd. Verweerster heeft toen de rest van de thiopental
toegediend. Nadat verweerster had vastgesteld dat patiënte niet meer
reageerde op aanspreken, niet ademde en geen wimperreflex had, heeft
verweerster 150 mg Rocuronium intraveneus toegediend. Zeven minuten
later heeft verweerster de dood vastgesteld door middel van
pupilcontrole."
Taking into account the lack of pain stimuli, the defendant did not think it necessary to administer lidocaine. Next, the defendant injected 2000 mg thiopental intravenously. While the thiopental was being injected, the patient rose up and was laid down by her family. The defendant then administered the rest of the thiopental. After the defendant established that the patient no longer responded to speech, did not breathe and had no eye-lash-reflex, the defendant administered 150 mg Rocuronium intravenously. Seven minutes later, the defendant pronounced death by way of the pupil control.
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
32
down vote
up vote
32
down vote
Oddthinking's answer is quite complete, but it does not quite address the allegation by the Daily Wire that " She was given coffee with a sedative in it, but she refused to drink it â and then struggled as the doctor tried to kill her. She fought so fiercely that the doctor ordered her own family to physically hold her down, and she was forcibly euthanized." Daily Wire
The Decision gives a detailed description under point 2.24, parts of which I will translate. Warning: Below are detailed descriptions of medical interventions with fatal result. Reading and translating this I found distressing, but if we're going to discuss this (I mean 'we' as in 'humankind') we should know the facts.
Present at the euthanasia were the husband, sister, daughter and son-in-law of the patient. Also present were a physician ("arts") and the defendant who is a physician specializing in elderly care ("specialist ouderengeneeskunde").
To start with, the physician added 15 mg midazolam to the patient's coffee, as discussed with the family, but not with the patient herself.
"Toen na ongeveer 3âÂÂ4 uur na de inname van 15 mg midazolam patiënte
nog wakker was, heeft verweerster haar 10 mg midazolam subcutaan
toegediend. Nadat patiënte in een toestand van verlaagd bewustzijn was
geraakt, heeft een ambulancebroeder een infuus bij patiënte
ingebracht, hetgeen ongeveer 15 minuten heeft geduurd omdat patiënte
moeilijk te prikken was. Patiënte heeft hierbij nauwelijks gereageerd
op deze pijnprikkels, maar heeft op enig moment wel een terugtrekkende
beweging gemaakt."
When, after about three quarters of an hour after taking the 15 mg midazolam, the patient was still awake, the defendant administered 10 mg of midazolam subcutaneously. After the patient entered a state of lowered consciousness, and ambulance medic started an IV, which took about 15 minutes because it was hard to find a vein. The patient hardly reacted to these painful stimuli, although she did at one point move away from them.
"Verweerster heeft, gelet op het ontbreken van pijnprikkels bij de
inbrenging van het infuus, geen noodzaak gezien om (nog) de
pijnstiller lidocaïne te geven. Vervolgens heeft verweerster 2000 mg
thiopental intraveneus toegediend. Tijdens het inspuiten van de
thiopental is patiënte omhoog gekomen en vervolgens door haar familie
teruggelegd. Verweerster heeft toen de rest van de thiopental
toegediend. Nadat verweerster had vastgesteld dat patiënte niet meer
reageerde op aanspreken, niet ademde en geen wimperreflex had, heeft
verweerster 150 mg Rocuronium intraveneus toegediend. Zeven minuten
later heeft verweerster de dood vastgesteld door middel van
pupilcontrole."
Taking into account the lack of pain stimuli, the defendant did not think it necessary to administer lidocaine. Next, the defendant injected 2000 mg thiopental intravenously. While the thiopental was being injected, the patient rose up and was laid down by her family. The defendant then administered the rest of the thiopental. After the defendant established that the patient no longer responded to speech, did not breathe and had no eye-lash-reflex, the defendant administered 150 mg Rocuronium intravenously. Seven minutes later, the defendant pronounced death by way of the pupil control.
Oddthinking's answer is quite complete, but it does not quite address the allegation by the Daily Wire that " She was given coffee with a sedative in it, but she refused to drink it â and then struggled as the doctor tried to kill her. She fought so fiercely that the doctor ordered her own family to physically hold her down, and she was forcibly euthanized." Daily Wire
The Decision gives a detailed description under point 2.24, parts of which I will translate. Warning: Below are detailed descriptions of medical interventions with fatal result. Reading and translating this I found distressing, but if we're going to discuss this (I mean 'we' as in 'humankind') we should know the facts.
Present at the euthanasia were the husband, sister, daughter and son-in-law of the patient. Also present were a physician ("arts") and the defendant who is a physician specializing in elderly care ("specialist ouderengeneeskunde").
To start with, the physician added 15 mg midazolam to the patient's coffee, as discussed with the family, but not with the patient herself.
"Toen na ongeveer 3âÂÂ4 uur na de inname van 15 mg midazolam patiënte
nog wakker was, heeft verweerster haar 10 mg midazolam subcutaan
toegediend. Nadat patiënte in een toestand van verlaagd bewustzijn was
geraakt, heeft een ambulancebroeder een infuus bij patiënte
ingebracht, hetgeen ongeveer 15 minuten heeft geduurd omdat patiënte
moeilijk te prikken was. Patiënte heeft hierbij nauwelijks gereageerd
op deze pijnprikkels, maar heeft op enig moment wel een terugtrekkende
beweging gemaakt."
When, after about three quarters of an hour after taking the 15 mg midazolam, the patient was still awake, the defendant administered 10 mg of midazolam subcutaneously. After the patient entered a state of lowered consciousness, and ambulance medic started an IV, which took about 15 minutes because it was hard to find a vein. The patient hardly reacted to these painful stimuli, although she did at one point move away from them.
"Verweerster heeft, gelet op het ontbreken van pijnprikkels bij de
inbrenging van het infuus, geen noodzaak gezien om (nog) de
pijnstiller lidocaïne te geven. Vervolgens heeft verweerster 2000 mg
thiopental intraveneus toegediend. Tijdens het inspuiten van de
thiopental is patiënte omhoog gekomen en vervolgens door haar familie
teruggelegd. Verweerster heeft toen de rest van de thiopental
toegediend. Nadat verweerster had vastgesteld dat patiënte niet meer
reageerde op aanspreken, niet ademde en geen wimperreflex had, heeft
verweerster 150 mg Rocuronium intraveneus toegediend. Zeven minuten
later heeft verweerster de dood vastgesteld door middel van
pupilcontrole."
Taking into account the lack of pain stimuli, the defendant did not think it necessary to administer lidocaine. Next, the defendant injected 2000 mg thiopental intravenously. While the thiopental was being injected, the patient rose up and was laid down by her family. The defendant then administered the rest of the thiopental. After the defendant established that the patient no longer responded to speech, did not breathe and had no eye-lash-reflex, the defendant administered 150 mg Rocuronium intravenously. Seven minutes later, the defendant pronounced death by way of the pupil control.
edited 12 hours ago
Willem Van Onsem
1033
1033
answered 12 hours ago
Elise van Looij
31127
31127
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
I have added the above as a comment to the article on the Daily Wire, since many of the people reading the article might not find their way here.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
Just to be clear, youâÂÂre stating there is no mention of any struggle right?
â Sebastiaan van den Broek
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
Something that isn't discussed in both answers here is that in her demented state, she did express herself.
From the decision, point 2.13, most recent 3 quotes, translated:
Dutch:
âÂÂ2 april 2016 (â¦) mw. heeft lange tijd voor de camera gepraat, geklaagd en nu en dan
gehuild en minimaal 2x gezegd dat zij dood wilde. (â¦)
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) Gesprek in de hal (â¦)Mw. vertelt dat zij alles heel naar vindt en dat ze
haar beter op kunnen knopen aan de deur (stelt vast dat die te laag is)âÂÂ
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) F [College: verzorgende] zegt mij het volgende: (â¦) Mw. was aan het
huilen. (â¦) âÂÂik denk dat ik binnenkort dood ga. Ik kan niet meer. Ik kan dit gewoon niet meer
aan. (â¦)âÂÂ
Translation:
2nd of april 2016. (â¦) Ms. has talked in front of the camera for a long time, complained, cried now and then and said at least twice she wanted to die. (â¦)
9th of april 2016 (â¦) Conversation in the hall(â¦) Ms. tells that everything's really unpleasant and that they could better hang her on the door (notes that the door is too low).
9th of april 2016 [Caregiver] tells me the following: (...) Ms. was crying. (...) "I think I'm dying soon. I can't anymore. I just can't handle it anymore (...).
There are many more quotes like this.
In the end, determining the will of a patient suffering from dementia is not always possible. But considering these statements, and the previous written declaration, I certainly wouldn't call this forcibly.
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
Something that isn't discussed in both answers here is that in her demented state, she did express herself.
From the decision, point 2.13, most recent 3 quotes, translated:
Dutch:
âÂÂ2 april 2016 (â¦) mw. heeft lange tijd voor de camera gepraat, geklaagd en nu en dan
gehuild en minimaal 2x gezegd dat zij dood wilde. (â¦)
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) Gesprek in de hal (â¦)Mw. vertelt dat zij alles heel naar vindt en dat ze
haar beter op kunnen knopen aan de deur (stelt vast dat die te laag is)âÂÂ
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) F [College: verzorgende] zegt mij het volgende: (â¦) Mw. was aan het
huilen. (â¦) âÂÂik denk dat ik binnenkort dood ga. Ik kan niet meer. Ik kan dit gewoon niet meer
aan. (â¦)âÂÂ
Translation:
2nd of april 2016. (â¦) Ms. has talked in front of the camera for a long time, complained, cried now and then and said at least twice she wanted to die. (â¦)
9th of april 2016 (â¦) Conversation in the hall(â¦) Ms. tells that everything's really unpleasant and that they could better hang her on the door (notes that the door is too low).
9th of april 2016 [Caregiver] tells me the following: (...) Ms. was crying. (...) "I think I'm dying soon. I can't anymore. I just can't handle it anymore (...).
There are many more quotes like this.
In the end, determining the will of a patient suffering from dementia is not always possible. But considering these statements, and the previous written declaration, I certainly wouldn't call this forcibly.
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
Something that isn't discussed in both answers here is that in her demented state, she did express herself.
From the decision, point 2.13, most recent 3 quotes, translated:
Dutch:
âÂÂ2 april 2016 (â¦) mw. heeft lange tijd voor de camera gepraat, geklaagd en nu en dan
gehuild en minimaal 2x gezegd dat zij dood wilde. (â¦)
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) Gesprek in de hal (â¦)Mw. vertelt dat zij alles heel naar vindt en dat ze
haar beter op kunnen knopen aan de deur (stelt vast dat die te laag is)âÂÂ
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) F [College: verzorgende] zegt mij het volgende: (â¦) Mw. was aan het
huilen. (â¦) âÂÂik denk dat ik binnenkort dood ga. Ik kan niet meer. Ik kan dit gewoon niet meer
aan. (â¦)âÂÂ
Translation:
2nd of april 2016. (â¦) Ms. has talked in front of the camera for a long time, complained, cried now and then and said at least twice she wanted to die. (â¦)
9th of april 2016 (â¦) Conversation in the hall(â¦) Ms. tells that everything's really unpleasant and that they could better hang her on the door (notes that the door is too low).
9th of april 2016 [Caregiver] tells me the following: (...) Ms. was crying. (...) "I think I'm dying soon. I can't anymore. I just can't handle it anymore (...).
There are many more quotes like this.
In the end, determining the will of a patient suffering from dementia is not always possible. But considering these statements, and the previous written declaration, I certainly wouldn't call this forcibly.
Something that isn't discussed in both answers here is that in her demented state, she did express herself.
From the decision, point 2.13, most recent 3 quotes, translated:
Dutch:
âÂÂ2 april 2016 (â¦) mw. heeft lange tijd voor de camera gepraat, geklaagd en nu en dan
gehuild en minimaal 2x gezegd dat zij dood wilde. (â¦)
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) Gesprek in de hal (â¦)Mw. vertelt dat zij alles heel naar vindt en dat ze
haar beter op kunnen knopen aan de deur (stelt vast dat die te laag is)âÂÂ
âÂÂ9 april 2016 (â¦) F [College: verzorgende] zegt mij het volgende: (â¦) Mw. was aan het
huilen. (â¦) âÂÂik denk dat ik binnenkort dood ga. Ik kan niet meer. Ik kan dit gewoon niet meer
aan. (â¦)âÂÂ
Translation:
2nd of april 2016. (â¦) Ms. has talked in front of the camera for a long time, complained, cried now and then and said at least twice she wanted to die. (â¦)
9th of april 2016 (â¦) Conversation in the hall(â¦) Ms. tells that everything's really unpleasant and that they could better hang her on the door (notes that the door is too low).
9th of april 2016 [Caregiver] tells me the following: (...) Ms. was crying. (...) "I think I'm dying soon. I can't anymore. I just can't handle it anymore (...).
There are many more quotes like this.
In the end, determining the will of a patient suffering from dementia is not always possible. But considering these statements, and the previous written declaration, I certainly wouldn't call this forcibly.
edited 11 hours ago
LangLangC
9,93734665
9,93734665
answered 12 hours ago
Erik von Asmuth
1973
1973
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
1
1
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
A major factor was also, as described in section 2.4-7 is that already in 2012 the patient signed a euthanasia intent, with a dementia clausule. Her mother and three brothers (one younger than her) had dementia and she feared the same prospect. When dementia was diagnosed in 2015, she signed another intent with the same content.
â Elise van Looij
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
@Elise very true. I hadn't repeated that since the answer by OddThinking also brought that point. The point I'm trying to add is that the patient, in her current state, was likely suffering and did desire to die.
â Erik von Asmuth
11 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
In DailyWire's defence, they do provide a reference to LiveAction, who provide a reference to the Mirror. That's probably where any answer should start.
â Oddthinkingâ¦
21 hours ago
1
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/⦠This is the closest I could find to a (relatively) reliable source on short notice. this one doesn't mention any specific case of deliberate forced euthanasia, but rather a couple of questionable cases.
â GordonM
16 hours ago
1
No name will ever be given as Dutch privacy regulations are extremely strict. Only if criminal charges against the doctor are filed may his initials be released to the public (first name and first letter of the surname only). That's the law in the Netherlands.
â jwenting
15 hours ago
2
Some comments on the situation in the Netherlands: many hospitals and care homes are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and pushing people to accept euthanasia is seen by some as a valid way to achieve this. I've encountered this myself with my mother who had terminal cancer (but wasn't in pain), we didn't fall for it and she lived another 8 months.
â jwenting
14 hours ago
1
@jwenting I applaud you for standing up for your mother but the suggestion that euthanasia is routinely promoted as a way to reduce costs ... can you back this up? My mother had dementia and lived in a nursing home for more than ten years and nobody ever suggested anything like that. And if they had, I would have reported them.
â Elise van Looij
12 hours ago