Dutch Doctor Sued for Saying No to Euthanasia

This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on September 27, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith 

I have been warning (with increasing intensity) about a pending medical martyrdom–forcing doctors to choose between killing and continuing in their profession–both from the contexts of statutory law and professional discipline. 

Now, in the Netherlands, we see a doctor reported to the medical board–essentially for malpractice–for recommending against a euthanasia killing. 

Milou de Moor had lupus and depression. She wanted euthanasia. Apparently receiving permission, the killing was called off because her GP didn’t agree, and she subsequently killed herself. 

From the PZC story story (Google translation): 

The good news was that the euthanasia of Milou was approved by the Ethics Committee. 

Note the culture of death’s insidious mutation of society and culture–the killing of a 19 year-old called “good news.” Back to the story: 

But the doctor, who had followed Milou disease from the sidelines for three years and knew the desire for euthanasia, was to the amazement of the family phoned the University Hospital because she did not agree with it. UZ tried to convince the doctor of necessity.  

“Because they did not know the disease. But they remained fickle. One minute she liked it, and then not again.” Eventually, she did not come back on its decision. For the family came to the reaction of the general practitioner therefore fall completely out of the air. “They had nothing to do with euthanasia, Milou was handled in Ghent.”  

To avoid that this can ever happen and that the GP here just get away with the family sought advice from a medical advisor. “Who says there’s a thing in it.” The complaint drawn up with the help of a lawyer. The Medical Disciplinary Tribunal will examine the facts and determine whether they start a case against the doctor. UZ is being investigated whether this can be prevented in the future. 

The participation of doctors–and their considered opinion whether euthanasia should be performed–has always been touted by euthanasia as an essential protective guideline. 

But now, even physician reticence as a protective safeguard it is under attack, both in an ethics opinion by the Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) and now, this complaint. 

Even if the physician is cleared of all charges, every doctor is now on notice in the Netherlands, refuse to kill or impeded a euthanasia, and risk the anxiety, turmoil, and expense of possible legal action against you. That, folks, is called a chilling effect, making agreeing to euthanasia the easier course. 

This kind of thinking also opens the door to possible civil suits for damages for refusing to kill, as doctors can be now for failing to provide proper pain control. 

The goal of the culture of death is “positive right” to be made dead, which requires a positive ”duty to kill” on the part of doctors to implement. 

The only other option is the establishment of a new profession of “lay executioners” as Jack Kevorkian once advocated. 

Once you open the door to assisted suicide/euthanasia, you are on the road to death on demand. The only question is how long it takes to reach the destination.