Onder 3.3 Rechtbank Den Haag 11 september 2019

The accused has already answered elaborately to the disciplinary court. In its decision of 19 March 2019 the Central Disciplinary Board for Public Health [Centraal Tuchtcollege voor Gezondsheidszorg] found that the accused did not meet the criteria for due care set by article 2, first paragraph, preamble under a and f, of the Tla and has therefore imposed on the accused the measure of a warning. The simple fact that the accused has had to answer to the disciplinary board however does not stand in the way of a criminal prosecution . Furthermore the disciplinary procedure is aimed mainly at the violation of (medical) standards linked to professional actions of the accused in the scope of her BIG-registration (registration for professions in individual health care), while this criminal case is about important legal aspects. It is above all the task of the criminal court to interpret the penal provision of article 293, first paragraph, Penal Code (hereafter: Pc) and the justification as laid down in article 293, second paragraph, Pc juncto article 2 of the Tla. In addition there is the fact that the most important point of law that the public prosecutor wants to submit to the court (“does the physician have the obligation to verify the present whish to live or to die with an incapacitated profoundly demented patient to qualify this as a well-considered request?”) has not been answered by the disciplinary court. The court recognizes the major societal importance of legal certainty for physicians and patients, which benefits from a

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/d2ceeb246b82b390e688b0c010cf8d30fc0d854334e03015e3e092670504e1df | shasum -a 256