Joachim Cohen1, Sigrid Dierickx2, Yolanda W H Penders1, Luc Deliens1,3, Kenneth Chambaere1. 1. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. 2. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. Sigrid.Dierickx@vub.be. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Death certificates are the main source of information on the incidence of the direct and underlying causes of death, but may be unsuitable for monitoring the practice of medical assistance in dying, e.g. euthanasia, due to possible underreporting. This study examines the accuracy of certification of euthanasia. METHODS: Mortality follow-back survey using a random sample of death certificates (N = 6871). For all cases identified as euthanasia we checked whether euthanasia was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate whether reporting varied according to patient and decision-making characteristics. RESULTS: Through the death certificates, 0.7% of all deaths were identified as euthanasia, compared with 4.6% through the mortality follow-back survey. Only 16.2% of the cases identified from the survey were reported on the death certificate. Euthanasia was more likely to be reported on the death certificate where death was from cancer (14% covered), neurological diseases (22%) and stroke (28%) than from cardiovascular disease (7%). Even when the recommended drugs were used or the physician self-labelled the end-of-life decision as euthanasia, euthanasia was only reported on the death certificate in 24% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Death certificates substantially underestimate the frequency of euthanasia as a cause of death in Belgium. Mortality follow-back studies are essential complementary instruments to examine and monitor the practice of euthanasia more accurately. Death certificate forms may need to be modified and clear guidelines provided to physicians about recording euthanasia to ensure more accurate certification.
BACKGROUND: Death certificates are the main source of information on the incidence of the direct and underlying causes of death, but may be unsuitable for monitoring the practice of medical assistance in dying, e.g. euthanasia, due to possible underreporting. This study examines the accuracy of certification of euthanasia. METHODS: Mortality follow-back survey using a random sample of death certificates (N = 6871). For all cases identified as euthanasia we checked whether euthanasia was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate whether reporting varied according to patient and decision-making characteristics. RESULTS: Through the death certificates, 0.7% of all deaths were identified as euthanasia, compared with 4.6% through the mortality follow-back survey. Only 16.2% of the cases identified from the survey were reported on the death certificate. Euthanasia was more likely to be reported on the death certificate where death was from cancer (14% covered), neurological diseases (22%) and stroke (28%) than from cardiovascular disease (7%). Even when the recommended drugs were used or the physician self-labelled the end-of-life decision as euthanasia, euthanasia was only reported on the death certificate in 24% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Death certificates substantially underestimate the frequency of euthanasia as a cause of death in Belgium. Mortality follow-back studies are essential complementary instruments to examine and monitor the practice of euthanasia more accurately. Death certificate forms may need to be modified and clear guidelines provided to physicians about recording euthanasia to ensure more accurate certification.
Authors: Tinne Smets; Joachim Cohen; Johan Bilsen; Yanna Van Wesemael; Mette L Rurup; Luc Deliens Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: H M Buiting; A van der Heide; B D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; M L Rurup; J A C Rietjens; G Borsboom; P J van der Maas; J J M van Delden Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Albert Tuca; Margarita Viladot; Carmen Barrera; Manoli Chicote; Irene Casablancas; Claudia Cruz; Elena Font; Javier Marco-Hernández; Joan Padrosa; Anais Pascual; Núria Codorniu; Begoña Román Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Iga Stokłosa; Maciej Stokłosa; Gniewko Więckiewicz; Mateusz Porwolik; Maciej Bugajski; Wilhelm Masarczyk; Tomasz Męcik-Kronenberg; Magdalena Piegza; Robert Pudlo; Piotr Gorczyca Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.614