BackgroundBelgium is one of very few countries that legally allow euthanasia for suffering caused by psychiatric illness. In the first criminal trial in Belgium of physicians involved in euthanasia, three physicians recently faced the accusation of “murder by poisoning,” for allegedly having failed to comply with several requirements of the Belgian Euthanasia Law in granting the euthanasia request a woman suffering from psychiatric illness. Although all three physicians were acquitted, the case generated much debate among policy makers, medical professionals, and the general public.MethodWe use this trial as the starting point for a critical analysis of the adequacy of the three-level control system established in the Euthanasia Law, as it is applied in the evaluation of euthanasia requests from persons who suffer unbearably from a psychiatric illness. This analysis is based on information presented during the criminal trial as well as information on the euthanasia that was published in the press.ResultsOur analysis highlights substantial problems in the assessment and granting of the euthanasia request. The patient was euthanized without it having been substantiated that her psychiatric illness had no prospect of improvement and that her suffering could not be alleviated. The three-step control system enshrined in the Law and promoted by the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission for Euthanasia appears to have failed at each level.ConclusionTo evaluate requests for euthanasia for mental suffering caused by psychiatric illness, the requirements of the Belgian Euthanasia Law should be complemented by mandating the advice of two psychiatrists, and face-to-face discussions between all physicians involved. In parallel with the process of evaluating the euthanasia request, a treatment track should be guaranteed where reasonable evidence-based treatments and recovery-oriented options are tried.

BackgroundBelgium is one of the few countries worldwide where euthanasia on the grounds of unbearable suffering caused by a psychiatric disorder is legally possible. In April 2010 euthanasia was carried out on a 38-year-old Belgian woman with borderline personality disorder and/or autism. After a complaint by the family, three physicians were referred to the Court of Assizes on the charge of “murder by poisoning”.MethodsA content analysis of print and online news coverage of the euthanasia case in a selected sample of Flemish newspapers and magazines, published between December 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020, was conducted to analyze the prominence and framing of the euthanasia case, as well as the portrayal of key figures in this case. A quantitative analysis, as well as an in-depth qualitative analysis (with the aid of NVivo 1.0 software) was performed.ResultsOne thousand two hundred fifteen news articles were identified through database searching. Of these, 789 articles were included after screening for relevance and eligibility. Mean prominence scores were moderate and did not statistically significantly differ between newspapers with a different historical ideological background or form (elite versus popular). The most frequent headline topics featured legal aspects (relating to the Belgian Euthanasia Law or the course of the trial). Headlines and content of most articles (90 and 89%, respectively) did not contain an essential standpoint on the euthanasia case itself or, if they did, were neutral. Historical ideological background, nor form of newspaper (elite versus popular) significantly influenced headline tone or article direction toward the euthanasia case. Despite this, our qualitative analysis showed some subtle differences in selection, statement or tonality of reports between certain newspapers with a different historical ideological background.ConclusionAlthough major Flemish newspapers and magazines generally were neutral in their coverage of the judicial case, major points of contention discussed were: the need for an evaluation and possible amendments to the existing Euthanasia Law, including a revision of the Belgian Control Commission and the system of penalties for physicians, and the absence of any consensus or guidance on how to define psychological suffering.