Euthanasia in the Netherlands

H. A M J Ten Have, Jos V. M. Welie

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The present situation in the Netherlands leads to the following three conclusions: (1) in daily health care practices, the crucial distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary termination of life is losing meaning; (2) contrary to previous decades, society tends to accept cases of nonvoluntary termination of life more easily. The Remmelink Committee does not consider these cases morally troublesome. Indeed, the new legislative proposals simply include nonvoluntary termination of life in the same disclosure regulation that governs voluntary termination of life; and (3) although the Dutch debate on euthanasia began as a protest against contemporary medicine's power over death and dying, the general acceptance of euthanasia and the recent legislation may increase medical power by shifting the balance further in the direction of physicians. Euthanasia is, after all, the ultimate step in medical interventionism; suffering is to be relieved by any means, even if it entails the elimination of the sufferer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)97-108
Number of pages12
JournalCritical Care Clinics
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Euthanasia
Netherlands
Disclosure
Legislation
Psychological Stress
Medicine
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians
Power (Psychology)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Euthanasia in the Netherlands. / Ten Have, H. A M J; Welie, Jos V. M.

In: Critical Care Clinics, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996, p. 97-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Ten Have, H. A M J ; Welie, Jos V. M. / Euthanasia in the Netherlands. In: Critical Care Clinics. 1996 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 97-108.
@article{facf359ef7ee43d4836385dd31e8125b,
title = "Euthanasia in the Netherlands",
abstract = "The present situation in the Netherlands leads to the following three conclusions: (1) in daily health care practices, the crucial distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary termination of life is losing meaning; (2) contrary to previous decades, society tends to accept cases of nonvoluntary termination of life more easily. The Remmelink Committee does not consider these cases morally troublesome. Indeed, the new legislative proposals simply include nonvoluntary termination of life in the same disclosure regulation that governs voluntary termination of life; and (3) although the Dutch debate on euthanasia began as a protest against contemporary medicine's power over death and dying, the general acceptance of euthanasia and the recent legislation may increase medical power by shifting the balance further in the direction of physicians. Euthanasia is, after all, the ultimate step in medical interventionism; suffering is to be relieved by any means, even if it entails the elimination of the sufferer.",
author = "{Ten Have}, {H. A M J} and Welie, {Jos V. M.}",
year = "1996",
doi = "10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70217-7",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "97--108",
journal = "Critical Care Clinics",
issn = "0749-0704",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Euthanasia in the Netherlands

AU - Ten Have, H. A M J

AU - Welie, Jos V. M.

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - The present situation in the Netherlands leads to the following three conclusions: (1) in daily health care practices, the crucial distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary termination of life is losing meaning; (2) contrary to previous decades, society tends to accept cases of nonvoluntary termination of life more easily. The Remmelink Committee does not consider these cases morally troublesome. Indeed, the new legislative proposals simply include nonvoluntary termination of life in the same disclosure regulation that governs voluntary termination of life; and (3) although the Dutch debate on euthanasia began as a protest against contemporary medicine's power over death and dying, the general acceptance of euthanasia and the recent legislation may increase medical power by shifting the balance further in the direction of physicians. Euthanasia is, after all, the ultimate step in medical interventionism; suffering is to be relieved by any means, even if it entails the elimination of the sufferer.

AB - The present situation in the Netherlands leads to the following three conclusions: (1) in daily health care practices, the crucial distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary termination of life is losing meaning; (2) contrary to previous decades, society tends to accept cases of nonvoluntary termination of life more easily. The Remmelink Committee does not consider these cases morally troublesome. Indeed, the new legislative proposals simply include nonvoluntary termination of life in the same disclosure regulation that governs voluntary termination of life; and (3) although the Dutch debate on euthanasia began as a protest against contemporary medicine's power over death and dying, the general acceptance of euthanasia and the recent legislation may increase medical power by shifting the balance further in the direction of physicians. Euthanasia is, after all, the ultimate step in medical interventionism; suffering is to be relieved by any means, even if it entails the elimination of the sufferer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030026916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030026916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70217-7

DO - 10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70217-7

M3 - Review article

VL - 12

SP - 97

EP - 108

JO - Critical Care Clinics

JF - Critical Care Clinics

SN - 0749-0704

IS - 1

ER -