ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010
Euthanasia in patients dying at home in Belgium: interview study on adherence to legal safeguards.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key challenges in providing assisted dying in Belgium: a qualitative analysis of health professionals' experiences.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- What medical conditions lead to a request for euthanasia? A rapid scoping review.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Response to LiPuma and DeMarco's Article on "Hastening Death".Health services insights · 2017Review
- Nationwide survey to evaluate the decision-making process in euthanasia requests in Belgium: do specifically trained 2nd physicians improve quality of consultation?BMC health services research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEuthanasia became legal in Belgium in 2002. Physicians must adhere to legal due care requirements when performing euthanasia; for example, consulting a second physician and reporting each euthanasia case to the Federal Review Committee.
aimTo study the adherence and non-adherence of GPs to legal due care requirements for euthanasia among patients dying at home in Belgium and to explore possible reasons for non-adherence. DESIGN OF STUDY: Large scale, retrospective study.
settingGeneral practice in Belgium.
methodA retrospective mortality study was performed in 2005-2006 using the nationwide Belgian Sentinel Network of General Practitioners. Each week GPs reported medical end-of-life decisions taken in all non-sudden deaths of patients in their practice. GP interviews were conducted for each euthanasia case occurring at home.
resultsInterviews were conducted for nine of the 11 identified euthanasia cases. Requirements concerning the patient's medical condition were met in all cases. Procedural requirements such as consultation of a second physician were sometimes ignored. Euthanasia cases were least often reported (n = 4) when the physician did not regard the decision as euthanasia, when only opioids were used to perform euthanasia, or when no second physician was consulted. Factors that may contribute to explaining non-adherence to the euthanasia law included: being unaware of which practices are considered to be euthanasia; insufficient knowledge of the euthanasia law; and the fact that certain procedures are deemed burdensome.
conclusionSubstantive legal due care requirements for euthanasia concerning the patient's request for euthanasia and medical situation were almost always met by GPs in euthanasia cases. Procedural consultation and reporting requirements were not always met.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.