"the disciplinary committee condemns the behavior of a healthcare provider but that the person can continue to practice their profession."
%20Web.jpg) |
| Alex Schadenberg |
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
An unnamed psychiatrist in the Netherlands has been reprimanded in two euthanasia deaths.
The NL Times reported on July 26 that The Regional Disciplinary Court for Healthcare in Amsterdam ruled that the healthcare provider was reprimanded for not acting with due care in two euthanasia deaths.
The NL Times reported that in the first euthanasia death:
The reprimanded psychiatrist is accused of ignoring a colleague’s second opinion in one case. That fellow psychiatrist found that the patient involved was not mentally competent, among other things, “because the reason for wanting to die lies in a psychotic conviction.” There were also further treatment options available for the patient, the colleague said.The NL Times reported that in the second euthanasia death:
The psychiatrist did continue to treat her patient. But when that process was completed, she took up the request for euthanasia again. After consulting her team and another expert, she concluded that the patient was mentally competent. When she represented this to the colleague psychiatrist, who previously ruled that the patient was not mentally competent, the colleague did not understand her conclusions. According to the disciplinary committee, the reprimanded psychiatrists did not properly substantiate why she stuck to her own opinion.
the psychiatrist did not ask for a second opinion at all. She herself also admitted that this was contrary to the guideline used in psychiatry “and was therefore incorrect.”The NL Times did not name the psychiatrist but it reported that the psychiatrist can continue to practice.
The disciplinary committee said it considered the "complexity of the matter" with which the psychiatrist had to deal when imposing the reprimand. The Board also said that it had not been shown that patient safety had been compromised. A reprimand means that the disciplinary committee condemns the behavior of a healthcare provider but that the person can continue to practice their profession.
Two inappropriate euthanasia deaths resulted in a slap on the wrist for the psychiatrist. How many wrongful deaths are acceptable?
I don't know what the Board is seeing in the 2nd case for them to say, "The Board also said that it had not been shown that patient safety had been compromised." How on earth had the patient's safety NOT been compromised ... they were killed! What am I missing? Are the members of that Board wearing blinders or are they just incapable of seeing the obvious?
ReplyDelete