The Groningen Protocol

Hastings Center Report

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 42-51

  Lindemann, Hilde ^a   Verkerk, Marian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HUMAN; NETHERLANDS; NEWBORN; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DECISION MAKING; EUTHANASIA, ACTIVE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MEDICAL FUTILITY; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 39449132266     PISSN: 00930334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. The protocol was introduced to the United States in two medical journals. See E. Verhagen and P.J.J. Sauer, "The Groningen Protocol: Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns," New England Journal of Medicine 352 (2005): 959-62;
2. E. Verhagen and P.J.J. Sauer, "End-of-Life Decisions in Newborns: An Approach from the Netherlands," Pediatrics 116 (2005): 736-39.
3. See F.A. Chervenak, L.B. McCullough, and B. Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," Hastings Center Report 36, no. 5 (2006): 30-33;
4. and F.A. Curlin, letter to the editor, New England Journal of Mediane 352 (2005): 2354.
5. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
6. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 32;
7. and A.B. Jotkowitz and S. Glick, "The Groningen Protocol: Another Perspective," Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (2006): 157-58, at 157.
8. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 32 and Jotkowitz and Glick, "The Groningen Protocol."
9. Jotkowitz and Glick, "The Groningen Protocol."
10. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
11. G.P. Oakley, Jr., letter to the editor, New England Journal of Medicine 352 (2005): 2354; and Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 32.
12. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
13. Verhagen and Sauer, "End-of-Life Decisions," 736.
14. Verhagen and Sauer, "The Groningen Protocol," 959.
15. Nuffield Council of Bioethics, "Critical Care Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine," November 2006, 12; http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/ fileLibrary/pdf/CCD_web_version_8_November.pdf.
16. Ibid., 20.
17. Verhagen and Sauer, "End-of-Life Decisions," 736.
18. Ibid., 738.
19. Ibid., 738.
20. Verhagen and Sauer, "The Groningen Protocol," 961.
21. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
22. Ibid., 30-33; and Curlin, letter to the editor.
23. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
24. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin propose this in "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 21.
25. Ibid., 31.
26. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. E. Cassell, "The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine," New England Journal of Medicine 306 (1982): 639-45.
30. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 31-32.
31. At the time of this writing, the committee has not yet reported their decision on this matter.
32. S. Kaufman, . . . And a Time to Die: How American Hospitals Shape the End of Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005).
33. J. Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," New England Journal of Medicine 292 (1975): 79-80.
34. Nuffield Council of Bioethics, "Critical Care Decisions," 19.
35. Chervenak, McCullough, and Arabin, "Why the Groningen Protocol Should Be Rejected," 32; and Jotkowitz and Glick, "The Groningen Protocol," at 157.
36. M. Rogers, and D. Hogan, "Family Life with Children with Disabilities: The Key Role of Rehabilitation," Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 4818-83.
37. For discussions of this concept see, C.W. Mills, The Racial Contract (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997);
38. and M.U. Walker, Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics (New York: Roudedge, 1997).
39. We are indebted to James Lindemann Nelson for helping us to clarify this argument.
40. H.L. Nelson and J.L. Nelson, The Patient in the Family: An Ethics of Medicine and Families (New York: Routledge, 1995), 98.
41. N.M.P. King, "Transparency in Neonatal Intensive Care," Hastings Center Report 22, no. 2 (1992): 18-25.
42. For a depressingly recent example, see S.M. Liao, J. Savulescu, and M. Sheehan, "Can We Justify Surgically Altering a Severely Impaired Child?" Hastings Center Report 37, no. 2 (2007): 16-20.
43. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (New York: Macmillan, 1953).