Author
Listed:
- Madeleine Archer
- Lindy Willmott
- Kenneth Chambaere
- Luc Deliens
- Ben P White
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.
Suggested Citation
Madeleine Archer & Lindy Willmott & Kenneth Chambaere & Luc Deliens & Ben P White, 2025.
"How does regulation influence euthanasia practice in Belgium? A qualitative exploration of involved doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives,"
Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-003..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:fwaf003.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:fwaf003.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.