↓ Skip to main content

Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 673)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2009
DOI 10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith A. C. Rietjens, Paul J. van der Maas, Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Johannes J. M. van Delden, Agnes van der Heide

Abstract

Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts. In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 193 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 14%
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 57 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 24%
Social Sciences 27 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Psychology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 58 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#798,869
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#24
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,025
of 122,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 122,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them