BACKGROUND:The Netherlands and Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002. AIM:In this study we describe and compare cases of reported euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the first 5 years of legislation. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:The databases of the cases reported in Belgium and the Netherlands were made available by the review committees. We compared characteristics of all cases reported between September 2002-December 2007. RESULTS:In the Netherlands 10,319 cases were reported, in Belgium 1917. Gender and age distributions were similar in both countries. Most patients suffered from cancer (83-87%), but patients more often suffered from diseases of the nervous system in Belgium (8.3% vs. 3.9%). In the Netherlands, reported euthanasia more often occurred at home compared with Belgium (81% vs. 42%), where it occurred more often in hospital (52% vs. 9%). In the Netherlands, all cases were based on the oral request of a competent patient. In Belgium, 2.1% of the reported cases was based on an advance directive. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that countries debating legislation must realise that the rules and procedures for euthanasia they would agree upon and the way they are codified or not into law may influence the practice that develops once the legislation is effected or what part of that practice is reported.

译文

背景:荷兰和比利时于2002年将安乐死合法化。
目的:在这项研究中,我们描述并比较了立法的头5年内报告的安乐死和医生协助自杀的案例。
设计/案情/参加者:比利时和荷兰报告的案件数据库由审查委员会提供。我们比较了2002年9月至2007年12月之间报告的所有病例的特征。
结果:在荷兰,1917年报告了10,319例病例。两个国家的性别和年龄分布相似。在比利时,大多数患者患有癌症(83-87%),但比利时患者更常患有神经系统疾病(8.3%对3.9%)。在荷兰,与比利时(81%比42%)相比,安乐死在家中发生的频率更高(后者在医院里发生的频率更高(52%对9%))。在荷兰,所有病例均基于有能力的患者的口头要求。在比利时,报告的病例中有2.1%是基于预先医疗指示。
结论:我们得出结论,辩论立法的国家必须认识到,他们将同意的安乐死规则和程序以及将其编纂为法律或不纳入法律的方式可能会影响立法一旦生效或报告了该行为的哪一部分,就会发展这种行为。 。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录