How does regulation influence euthanasia practice in Belgium? A qualitative exploration of involved doctors' and nurses' perspectives.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwaf003
Madeleine Archer, Lindy Willmott, Kenneth Chambaere, Luc Deliens, Ben P White
{"title":"How does regulation influence euthanasia practice in Belgium? A qualitative exploration of involved doctors' and nurses' perspectives.","authors":"Madeleine Archer, Lindy Willmott, Kenneth Chambaere, Luc Deliens, Ben P White","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwaf003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. Despite extensive research exploring Belgian euthanasia practice, investigations into its governing regulatory framework are limited. Existing studies that consider regulation take a 'siloed' approach, generally considering sources of regulation individually, including euthanasia legislation and euthanasia policies. This study obtains insights from providing health professionals on how the Belgian euthanasia regulatory landscape influences their euthanasia practice. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews from September 2022 to March 2024 with eligible physicians and nurses and analysed them using a reflexive approach to thematic analysis. We generated three overarching themes describing the influence of regulation on euthanasia practice: the Act is a valuable, boundary-setting instrument; but the Act is limited, leaving space for gap filling and other forms of regulation; and relying on professional judgment can make practitioners feel vulnerable. Key findings include that practitioners respond to the Act's non-prescriptiveness and regulatory lacunae by relying on their professional judgment, and that the efficacy of the retrospective euthanasia oversight model depends on physicians' good faith participation. Policymakers in Belgium and internationally are encouraged to reflect on the implications of Belgium's euthanasia regulatory model for the consistency, quality, and control of euthanasia practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. Despite extensive research exploring Belgian euthanasia practice, investigations into its governing regulatory framework are limited. Existing studies that consider regulation take a 'siloed' approach, generally considering sources of regulation individually, including euthanasia legislation and euthanasia policies. This study obtains insights from providing health professionals on how the Belgian euthanasia regulatory landscape influences their euthanasia practice. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews from September 2022 to March 2024 with eligible physicians and nurses and analysed them using a reflexive approach to thematic analysis. We generated three overarching themes describing the influence of regulation on euthanasia practice: the Act is a valuable, boundary-setting instrument; but the Act is limited, leaving space for gap filling and other forms of regulation; and relying on professional judgment can make practitioners feel vulnerable. Key findings include that practitioners respond to the Act's non-prescriptiveness and regulatory lacunae by relying on their professional judgment, and that the efficacy of the retrospective euthanasia oversight model depends on physicians' good faith participation. Policymakers in Belgium and internationally are encouraged to reflect on the implications of Belgium's euthanasia regulatory model for the consistency, quality, and control of euthanasia practice.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法规如何影响比利时的安乐死实践?涉及医生和护士的观点的定性探索。
自2002年以来,安乐死在比利时是合法的。尽管对比利时安乐死实践进行了广泛的研究,但对其监管框架的调查是有限的。考虑监管的现有研究采取了“孤立”的方法,通常单独考虑监管的来源,包括安乐死立法和安乐死政策。本研究从提供卫生专业人员对比利时安乐死监管景观如何影响他们的安乐死实践的见解。从2022年9月到2024年3月,我们对符合条件的医生和护士进行了半结构化的深度访谈,并使用自反性方法进行了主题分析。我们产生了三个总体主题来描述监管对安乐死实践的影响:该法案是一个有价值的,边界设定工具;但该法案是有限的,为填补空白和其他形式的监管留出了空间;依赖专业判断会让从业者感到脆弱。主要发现包括,从业者对法案的非规范性和监管空白的反应依赖于他们的专业判断,追溯性安乐死监督模式的有效性取决于医生的善意参与。鼓励比利时和国际上的政策制定者反思比利时安乐死监管模式对安乐死实践的一致性、质量和控制的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126: Surprising disregard for jigsaw identification. Re QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of Liberty: Children under 16) [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam): Parental consent and deprivation of liberty. What's in a name? Abbasi and Another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15. Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute? From scalpel to statute: IVG's impact on invasiveness and gender parity in posthumous conception.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1