Skip Navigation



Family Practice Advance Access published online on October 14, 2009

Family Practice, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmp065
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/6/472    most recent
cmp065v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Norwood, F.
Right arrow Articles by Battin, M. P
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Norwood, F.
Right arrow Articles by Battin, M. P
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Vulnerability and the ‘slippery slope’ at the end-of-life: a qualitative study of euthanasia, general practice and home death in The Netherlands

Frances Norwooda, Gerrit Kimsmab and Margaret P Battinc

a Inclusion Research Institute, 1010 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 340, Washington, DC 20007, USA
b Department of Metamedicine, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9156, USA

Correspondence to Frances Norwood; E-mail: francesnorwood{at}aol.com

Received 3 April 2009; Revised 14 September 2009; Accepted 17 September 2009.


   Abstract

Background. One enduring criticism of the Dutch euthanasia policy is the ‘slippery slope’ argument that suggests that allowing physicians to conduct legal euthanasia or assisted suicide would eventually lead to patients being killed against their will. What we currently know about euthanasia and its practices in The Netherlands is predominantly based on retrospective quantitative or interview-based studies, but these studies fail to detail the mechanisms of day-to-day practice.

Objective. To examine the practices that surround euthanasia, particularly among vulnerable patients, using qualitative observation-based data.

Methods. A 15-month qualitative, observation-based study of home death and general practice in the greater Amsterdam region of The Netherlands. Study included observation and interviews with a sample of 15 (GPs and 650 of their patients, 192 of whom were living with terminal or life-threatening illness (with and without requests for euthanasia).

Results. Euthanasia practice typically involves extensive deliberations, the majority of which do not end in a euthanasia death. Euthanasia discussions or ‘euthanasia talk’ share at least two consequences: (i) the talk puts the onus on patients to continue discussions towards a euthanasia death and (ii) there is a socio-therapeutic component, which tends to affirm social bonds and social life.

Conclusion. While this qualitative evidence cannot disprove existence of abuse, it suggests that euthanasia practices have evolved in such a way that patients are more likely to talk about euthanasia than to die a euthanasia death.

Keywords. Assisted dying, euthanasia, general practice, palliative care, qualitative research.


Norwooda F, Kimsma G and Battin M P. Vulnerability and the ‘slippery slope’ at the end-of-life: a qualitative study of euthanasia, general practice and home death in The Netherlands. Family Practice 2009; Pages 1–9 of 9.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.