Euthanasia leader challenges, disability rights leader, Catherine Frazee, concerning euthanasia.

Catherine Frazee

Dr Rob Jonquiére, the communications director for the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, challenged the position of Catherine Frazee in her recent article opposing euthanasia.

Dr Jonquiére appears to be very proud of the work he did instituting the euthanasia law in the Netherlands. He is convinced that all is well with euthanasia in the Netherlands. But does he have an objective ear?

Dr Jonquiére states that decisions concerning euthanasia: 

must defined from a - subjective - peronal point of view. 

This means that a person who is at a low point in their life, and considers their life to have lost meaning, would qualify for euthanasia. This belief is not a "freedom to choose death" but rather an abandonment of a person when they are in need of human support.

Jonquiére stated that: 

an inborn loathing with any doctor for termination of life of one of his patients have shown to be the major reason for careful implementation of the Dutch Law since its start in 2002.

I agree that doctors, and people in general, have an inborn loathing for termination of life but inborn loathing, or as some call it, human nature, has a way of weakening its natural inclinations when a person consistently contravenes what is inborn. 

This may be why in the Netherlands: 

● 45 psychiatric assisted deaths occurred in 2013. 

● Dr Jonquiére's friend, psychiatrist Dr Boudewijn Chabot recently stated that the Netherlands euthanasia law has derailed. 

● The 2012 Netherlands euthanasia statistics showed that there were 13% more reported euthanasia deaths in 2012. The number of reported assisted deaths were 4188 in 2012, up from 1923 in 2006. 

● The number of unreported assisted deaths increased from 20% in 2005 to 23% in 2010. Studies from Belgium prove that doctors who abuse the law often do not report the death.  

● a healthy woman who was becoming blind recently died by euthanasia. Jonquiére must not have considered this case when stating that Frazee's fear of societal detriment has not occurred in the Netherlands. 

Jonquiére also ignores the Groningen Protocol that allows euthanasia for newborns with disabilities. He may suggest that this is to eliminate human suffering, when in fact it simply eliminates the human.

Dr Jonquiére's response to Catherine Frazee's article opposing euthanasia.

Catherine Frazee rightfully suggests to use “the time Quebec’s Bill 52 is stuck in legislative limbo” to carefully re-listen to all arguments. But – I would add - with an objective ear. Unfortunately she forgets (?) to refer also to the - possible most important criteria of Bill 52 - legal requirement of an explicit and well-considered, voluntary request, before “aid in dying” complies with Bill 52. And she also carefully avoids to explicate that “dignity” and “autonomy” in the scope of Bill 52 (and for that in all known legislations around the world!) must be defined from a – subjective – personal point of view: what I consider as “dignified” might well be different from what Catherine Frazee finds. 

These points added to an inborn loathing with any doctor for termination the life of one of his patients, have shown to be the major reason for the careful implementation of the Dutch Law since its start in 2002. After 20 years of “tolerated” practice and over 12 years of “legalized” practice there is no sign in the Dutch general population for ms. Frazee’s feared societal detriment. Rob Jonquière, MD; Amsterdam, NL