Appeals court overturns acquittal in euthanasia case
The doctor who administered euthanasia to Tine Nys must return to court to be judged on whether he followed procedures correctly
No jail time, possible damages
The criminal trial in January of two physicians and one psychiatrist was a media sensation and re-opened the debate as to whether euthanasia should be administered to patients with severe psychological problems.
The case was brought to court by three siblings of Tine Nys, who received euthanasia in 2010 for psychological suffering. It was the first court case involving the administration of euthanasia in the country since the law allowing it was passed in 2002.
The siblings claim that the procedure required to carry out euthanasia in Belgium was not followed properly and sought convictions of murder or manslaughter for Nys’ family doctor, Van Hove and the psychologist who signed off on the procedure. A jury acquitted all three, but admitted that it was “impossible to determine with certainty if the conditions required by law had been infringed”.
The trial clearly showed that the euthanasia law was broken on several occasions
The siblings were particularly concerned about the behaviour of Dr Joris Van Hove, who administered the euthanasia. Their lawyer, Joris Van Cauter, appealed the decision to acquit Van Hove of any wrongdoing to the Court of Cassation, the highest court in the country.
The court agreed that the criminal proceedings against Van Hove did not sufficiently interpret the law and ordered a new hearing. It will not be a criminal hearing, however; as a jury has acquitted Van Hove of criminal activity, he will not be retried for that.
The new hearing will determine if Van Hove broke the law that governs euthanasia procedures. If the three judges determine that he did, he may have to pay damages to the Nys family.
“The family just wants justice,” said Van Cauter. “The trial clearly showed that the euthanasia law was not respected on several occasions during the process. What will be considered in the new hearing is the heart of the matter: Did the doctor adhere to legal requirements or not?”
Photo: Dr Joris Van Hove (centre) at the original trial in January