News media coverage of euthanasia: A content analysis of Dutch national newspapers

© 2013 Rietjens et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The Netherlands is one of the few countries where euthanasia is legal under strict conditions. This study investigates whether Dutch newspaper articles use the term ‘euthanasia’ according to the legal definition and determines what arguments for and against euthanasia they contain. Methods: We did an electronic search of seven Dutch national newspapers between January 2009 and May 2010 and conducted a content analysis. Results: Of the 284 articles containing the term ‘euthanasia’, 24% referred to practices outside the scope of the law, mostly relating to the forgoing of life-prolonging treatments and assistance in suicide by others than physicians. Of the articles with euthanasia as the main topic, 36% described euthanasia in the context of a terminally ill patient, 24% for older persons, 16% for persons with dementia, and 9% for persons with a psychiatric disorder. The most frequent arguments for euthanasia included the importance of self-determination and the fact that euthanasia contributes to a good death. The most frequent arguments opposing euthanasia were that suffering should instead be alleviated by better care, that providing euthanasia can be disturbing, and that society should protect the vulnerable. Conclusions: Of the newspaper articles, 24% uses the term ‘euthanasia’ for practices that are outside the scope of the euthanasia law. Typically, the more unusual cases are discussed. This might lead to misunderstandings between citizens and physicians. Despite the Dutch legalisation of euthanasia, the debate about its acceptability and boundaries is ongoing and both sides of the debate are clearly represented

Assistance in dying for older people without a serious medical condition who have a wish to die: a national cross-sectional survey

Background The Dutch euthanasia law regulates physician assistance in dying for patients who are suffering unbearably from a medical condition. We studied the attitudes of the Dutch population to assistance in dying for older persons who have a wish to die without the presence of a serious medical condition. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a random sample of the Dutch public (response rate 78%, n= 1960), using statements and vignettes about attitudes to assistance in dying for older persons who are tired of living. Results A minority of 26% agreed with a vignette in which a physician warrants the request for physician-assisted suicide of an older person who is tired of living without having a serious medical condition. Furthermore, 21% agreed with the statement 'In my opinion euthanasia should be allowed for persons who are tired of living without having a serious disease'. People supporting euthanasia for older persons who are tired of living were more likely than opponents to be highly educated (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3), to be non-religious (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), to have little trust in physicians (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.2), and to prefer to make their own healthcare decisions (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3). Conclusions Although it is lower than the level of support for assistance in dying for patients whose suffering is rooted in a serious medical condition, our finding that a substantial minority of the general public supports physician assistance in dying for older people who are tired of living implies that this topic may need to be taken seriously in the debate about end-of-life decision-making

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide? A survey from the Netherlands

Background: Legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a current topic of debate in many countries. The Netherlands is the only country where legislation covers both. Objectives: To study physicians' experiences and attitudes concerning the choice between euthanasia and PAS. Methods: A questionnaire including vignettes was sent to a random sample of 1955 Dutch general practitioners, elderly care physicians and medical specialists. Results: In total, 793 physicians (41%) participated. There was no clear preference for euthanasia (36%) or PAS (34%). Two thirds of physicians thought that PAS underlines the autonomy and responsibility of the patient and considered this a reason to choose PAS. Reasons for not choosing PAS were expected practical problems. A minority (22%) discussed the possibility of PAS with their patient in case of a request for assistance in dying. Patients receiving PAS more often experienced psychosocial suffering in comparison with patients receiving euthanasia. In vignettes of patients with a request for assistance in dying due to psychosocial suffering, physicians agreed more often with the performance of PAS than with euthanasia. Conclusion: Dutch physicians perceive a difference between euthanasia and PAS. Although they believe PAS underlines patient autonomy and responsibility, the option of PAS is rarely discussed with the patient. The more psychosocial in nature the patient's suffering, the more physicians choose PAS. In these cases, PAS seems to fulfil physicians 'preferences to emphasize patient autonomy and responsibility. Expected technical problems and unfamiliarity with PAS also play a role. Paradoxically, the choice for PAS is predominantly a physician's one