The Remmelink Committee published its report on medical decisions at the end of life in the Netherlands in September 1991. As a result, the Dutch debate about physician aid‐in‐dying has been broadened to include life‐terminating acts that have not been explicitly requested by the patient.

The health of newborns has always been subject to the natural lottery. When in the past a severely disabled baby was born, nature provided the “solution,” and the child did not survive. Medical technology has brought about a change; fetuses who would have died during pregnancy or newborns who once would have had little chance to survive are now kept alive. Although these technological advances do benefit many children, the dark side is that more severely handicapped babies are surviving.When a (...) severely disabled baby is born, all persons concerned are faced with emotional difficulties as well as moral and legal dilemmas. Questions that arise include whether it is acceptable, morally and legally, to allow the severely handicapped newborn to die by forgoing treatment or by direct intervention. (shrink)

Recently, new developments took place in the Dutch debate on the legislation of euthanasia. After a brief account of that debate, the article discusses a new government proposal for legislation in this field, which was submitted to the Dutch parliament in November 1991. This proposal relates not only to euthanasia but also to some other medical decisions concerning the end of life. The author concludes that, for several reasons, it is unsatisfactory.

The Remmelink Committee published its report on medical decisions at the end of life in the Netherlands in September 1991. As a result, the Dutch debate about physician aid‐in‐dying has been broadened to include life‐terminating acts that have not been explicitly requested by the patient.

ABSTRACT In 1991 the Dutch government released the results of the first national investigation into the nature and extent of decisions concerning end of life including euthanasia. A significant finding was that most cases of euthanasia were not reported. This prompted us to ask what effect, if any, not reporting caused. More specifically, we asked whether reporting has a positive or negative impact on the experiences of friends or relatives of patients who have received euthanasia. In cases of euthanasia, complications (...) of both process and experience can deter from a minimally complicated death. These difficulties arise when either the family or physician does not perceive the freedom to disclose euthanasia openly. On the basis of interviews with family members and patients, we illustrate that they generally benefit from reporting. Our premise is that reporting fosters open discussion of euthanasia. We further suggest physicians and society benefit from a milieu of openness initiated by reporting cases of euthanasia. (shrink)