This week, EM publishes the first story from a large research project regarding the university’s handling of medical students who appear unsuitable for the profession of doctor. This is an issue that medical programmes across the country have been trying to address for years, with no conclusive success thus far. As a result, diplomas are awarded to individuals – and I say this succinctly – that one would rather not have at one’s bedside.
Elephant in the room
We knew it was a sensitive topic when we began. The elephant in the room is, of course, the case surrounding former medical student Fouad L. He killed three people in September 2023, including a lecturer, and set fire to the Education Centre after being informed that he needed to undergo an additional psychological evaluation to obtain his diploma. It became clear during the trial that L. had been on the radar of the programme for some time because he was not functioning, and the programme did not want to grant him the medical diploma. However, they lacked the resources and measures to carry this out. For further background on this, read the articles in our special Less jerks at the hospital bedside.
But L. was not the only example of a student for whom the programme would like more tools to deny them the title of doctor. He was, however, the most extreme and horrific case, with consequences that no one had foreseen.
This was reason enough for EM to let colleague Tessa Hofland delve into the matter. And precisely because this is a very sensitive topic, particularly since L.’s appeal is still ongoing, we have approached this carefully as an editorial team. For more on this, please also read the accountability at the end of the first article.
Swedish tool
One of the methods that EM employs to ensure that everything is correct in such significant, complex, and sensitive stories is the line-by-line check method, conceived and developed by Swedish journalist Nils Hanson. In summary, this method entails checking a story line by line: what are the sources of the stated facts, including quotes. It takes time to do; for this first story, it took at least two days for three people. This involved checking facts, going back through notes and documents, or recordings of conversations.
During the line-by-line check of this story, for instance, we discovered that the author still needed to unearth a specific report to substantiate several facts and statements from other sources. And yes, this takes time and can lead to frustration because a deadline had to be postponed, but it contributes to the truth-finding that EM strives for with its journalism.
Our editor received feedback from one of the readers in advance that the article was – in Dutch – doorwrocht, which more or less translates to a well-crafted or well-thought-out story. The meaning for doorwrocht in the Dutch dictionary boils down to: 1 well-constructed; 2 well thought out, particularly well substantiated and therefore solid.
Our editor received feedback from one of the readers in advance that it was a ‘well-thought-out’ story. I looked up the word to check its exact meaning, and Van Dale states: 1 well-constructed; 2 well thought out, particularly well substantiated and therefore solid. Ensie adds: thorough, almost perfectly refined. And Ensie describes it as: solid, almost perfect editing.
That is what we aim for.
