Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands: Postscript to Chabot
| Published date | 01 November 1995 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02060.x |
| Date | 01 November 1995 |
November
19951
Postscript
to
Chabot
Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands: Postscript
to
Chabot
John
Griffiths
*
The decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in the
Chabot
case
-
involving the
criminal prosecution
of
a psychiatrist who had acceded to the request of a
psychically traumatised but not otherwise ‘sick’ woman (Mrs
B)
for assistance
with suicide
-
was reported in an earlier issue
of
MLR
(58:2,
March
1995,
pp
232-248).
The Court held that the defence of necessity, upon which the
legalisation of euthanasia and assistance with suicide in the Netherlands has been
based, could in principle be invoked in such a case but was not available to Chabot
because
of
his failure to meet an essential procedural requirement (personal
examination by a second doctor).
The prosecution had requested the responsible Medical Inspector, who was
contemplating a medical disciplinary proceeding, not to
go
ahead with it while the
criminal case was pending. When, with the decision of the Supreme Court on
21
June
1994,
the criminal case was over, the disciplinary proceedings against
Chabot got underway. The regional Medical Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a
decision on
6
February
1995.’
It concluded that what Chabot had done
‘undermined confidence in the medical profession’ (the basic disciplinary norm).
*
Chabot received a relatively severe sanction: ‘reprimand.’ On
19
April
1995,
Chabot announced that he had had enough
of
legal proceedings and would
not appeal this decision, which means that the case is now finally closed.
The purpose of this brief postscript to the earlier report of the Supreme Court’s
decision in the criminal case is to provide some basic information about and
comments on the subsequent decision of the Medical Disciplinary Tribunal. The
facts in the case are set forth in the report of the Supreme Court’s de~ision.~
Chabot wanted vindication on the merits from a tribunal of his peers (of the five
members of a medical disciplinary tribunal, all but the president
-
a lawyer
-
are
doctors),
so
he instructed his lawyer not to raise the difficult issue of double
jeopardy. The Tribunal was therefore not forced to confront the question whether,
in the circumstances
of
this case in which no issue was involved in the second
proceeding that was not, or could not have been, raised in the first proceeding, it is
not fundamentally unfair that the state should have two opportunities to make its
case. Nor did the Tribunal address itself to the relationship between the substantive
and procedural norms for euthanasia and assistance with suicide as worked out by
*Faculty of Law, University of Groningen.
1
Gerritsen
v
Chabot,
Medisch Tuchtcollege Amsterdam, nr 93/185;
Medisch Contact
nr 21 (1995)
pp 668-674. A companion complaint by the Inspector against the general practitioner present at the
suicide at Chabot’s request resulted in the holding that under the circumstances (in which he was only
present as a witness to the proceedings and it was not ‘plainly apparent’ that what Chabot proposed to
do was inconsistent with the medical disciplinary norm) he was not responsible for what Chabot did:
Gerrisen
v
Beuhn,
Medisch Tuchtcollege Amsterdam, nr 93/186;
Medisch Contact
nr 21 (1995)
For a discussion of Dutch medical disciplinary law, see Verkruisen,
Dissatisjed Patients: Their
Experiences, Interpretations and Actions
(Groningen, 1993).
The statement
of
facts in the judgment
of
the Medical Disciplinary Tribunal is particularly careful and
complete, and sheds additional light on some aspects of the case.
pp 675
-
676.
2
3
0
The
Modern Law Review Limited
1995
895
To continue reading
Request your trial