Netherlands Child Euthanasia ...Gone too far.

Margreet van der Valk: They just killed my mother.

Narrator: Consent to euthanasia is sometimes ignored in the Netherlands.

Margreet: And I said the cause of death, what is the cause of death and she said pneumonia and heart failure, but I thought, I was laying in bed, no it was not, it was that lethal injection you gave her.

Narrator: And in neighboring Belgium, people with disabilities are being targeted.

Lionel Roosemont: We were walking with our child in her wheelchair and we would have people who we do not know, and they would come towards us, and they would ask us, why don't you have euthanasia with that child.

Narrator: Even those in favor of euthanasia in the Netherlands say we've gone too far.

Dr Boudewijn Chabot: People who are fighting their fear of life and fighting against death flock to the life ending clinic and then we see that there is a slippery slope.

Hugo de Jonge

Narrator: And now the Dutch Health Minister, Hugo de Jonge, has announced the expansion of euthanasia to include children.

Gerbert van Loenen: What we have seen here in the Netherlands and in Belgium is that the euthanasia practice has broadened.

*Sign and share the Petition opposing child euthanasia in the Netherlands (Link).

Narrator: When euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands it was based on an adult who was capable of consent but as Margreet van der Valk found out doctors sometimes make the decision to euthanize patients on their own.

Margreet: And he said, the decision to let her go or to let her live, you couldn't make because you were not there so I made it because they said my mother was depressed, but she was not depressed.

Narrator: Lionel Roosemont lives in Belgium. His daughter Tikvah has lived with a significant brain conditions from birth. It's hard to believe but people often ask why he hasn't euthanized his daughter.

Lionel: Our children were there when people were telling us to have euthanasia with her. And my daughter who was thirteen at the time, she said: "they do not have the right to say that." She was very angry but she was right.

She's a joy for everyone of our family members. We cannot image her being gone, impossible.

Narrator: Dr Boudewijn Chabot, sometimes called the pioneer of euthanasia in the Netherlands sees a real culture shift as people with psychological illnesses are now being euthanized.

Boudewijn: We do slide down with demented brain diseases and psychiatric cases. But on the whole you have to see it in perspective. These are two groups together are 200 of the 6000, that's small, that's always the arguement the review committee says - don't worry Mr Chabot it's only 200 cases, so that's the way they re-assure the public. But I say look at the steep rise in seven years.

Gerbert: Will this also apply to patients with psychiatric disorders, will this also apply to patients with alzheimer's disease, will this even apply to patients with advanced alzheimer's disease, will this apply to babies, will this apply to children?

Narrator: Indeed the Netherlands is now considering the expansion of euthanasia to children. Many people are sounding the alarm bells with the concern that this is one step too far.

Lionel: Tikvah has been a testimony to us. If today you go through Belgium, you will not see many young children that have a handicap because they were not left to be alive.

More articles on this topic:

• The Netherlands government intends to extend euthanasia to children but not to people who are tired of living (Link).
• The Dutch government wants to avoid the debate by permitting child euthanasia without changing the law (Link).
• *Sign and share the Petition opposing child euthanasia in the Netherlands (Link).

Kevin Dunn: A Tale of Two Films

By Kevin Dunn

Kevin Dunn in Guernsey

If someone told me that one day I would be travelling around the world to speak on euthanasia and assisted suicide I would have been hard pressed to believe them. I mean, who in their right mind would want to talk about death as a calling?
 
For most of my career, I was either in front of the camera entertaining —or behind it, producing films on things like dinosaurs, spies, entrepreneurs or modern history. However, as I began inching towards the age of 50 (I’m a young 54 as I write this) the subject matter for my films took a seismic shift towards social justice issues - and in particular, laws that imply that some lives are not worth living.

As I write this, I’m flying home from my 20th talk of 2019 - this time in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I call it my “Prophets of Hope” tour because I honestly believe that is where the solution lies. Each of us has to become a prophet of hope - a reason for someone’s tomorrow - especially in light of laws that tell others to give up on hope. For some reason, despite dire warnings from jurisdictions experienced with the cultural effects of euthanasia and assisted suicide, countries and states continue to enact laws that allow doctors to provide lethal injections or drugs to citizens who ‘qualify’ under certain criteria. What was once deemed unthinkable is now an option — and in many ways has become a subtle obligation —as fear of future suffering, losing autonomy or becoming a burden are among the top reasons why people request it.

In my recent film Fatal Flaws: Legalizing Assisted Death, I asked Dutch journalist Gerbert Van Loenen if there was anyone covering the other side of the euthanasia debate. He emphatically responded - ‘I’m afraid no one’. I found this especially alarming because the boundaries of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands are expanding to the point where even people who are ‘tired of life’ might get access to a lethal dose - legally - in the near future. I mean how could things have gone off the rails so badly that a civilized country would actually consider legalizing suicide for what would otherwise be diagnosed as depression and despair? Is it not bad enough that people are now asking for euthanasia at the first diagnosis of terminal illnesses? Where was the media in all of this? Journalists have not been doing their job. This is what inspired me to do more.
 

Alex Schadenberg & Kevin Dunn

Thankfully there are a handful of people who have been doing this issue justice - and one in particular for the past two decades: my friend Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition — a position he’s held for the past 20 years. Everywhere I speak, anytime I mention his name, Alex is known and respected. Even those who disagree with him have good things to say about his candour.

In November of 2015, I received an email from Alex asking me to create an information video which would educate people on these issues. He wanted to expose the risks associated with turning these previously criminal acts into some form of health care. Alex has been ringing the alarm bells since 1999, aware that the Kevorkian ideology was slowly trickling across the US border into Canada - and of the subtle but deadly introduction of language that was changing the act of murder into mercy killing; and assisted suicide into something called death with dignity.

With funding from the EPC, the information video quickly grew into a major documentary called The Euthanasia Deception produced by EPC and DunnMedia. The film took my crew and I through Belgium and various places in Canada where we found a plethora of underrepresented people who were waiting to tell their story on how these laws had deceived them. Patients, family members, medical professionals and ethicists all weighed in to paint a very grim picture of assisted dying laws.

Purchase the Fatal Flaws film (Link).
Purchase the Euthanasia Deception documentary (Link).

Just months after releasing The Euthanasia Deception, Alex and I heard about a strange phenomenon in the Netherlands called “Euthanasia Week”: an annual event of conferences, films and media interviews all geared at extolling the ‘virtue’ of Holland’s euthanasia law. This became one of the focal points for our next film, Fatal Flaws . It is now being screened and distributed internationally and won numerous awards.

Both films speak with authority because we hear stories from victims directly. As a filmmaker I know how important this is. I’ve seen first hand how the assisted death philosophy defines the person by their illness. This is absurd. We should never be defined by what malady assails us. We are defined by our worth as a created human being, deserving of the best care, the best pain management, the kind of dignity that says “I will walk with you and fight for you to the end - I will never abandon you by ending your life prematurely. As Mark Davis Pickup aptly noted in The Euthanasia Deception, “We should never judge tomorrow based on the fears of today.” Mark has lived with Multiple Sclerosis for over 30 years.

Margreet Van der Valk's mother

I am formalizing plans for a speaking tour in Australia in August. It would seem the land down under is quickly falling prey to the culture of abandonment which we have sadly embraced here in North America and in parts of Europe. I share the stories of those who bravely came forward on camera to tell me how these laws have taken them or their loved ones to the brink of death. Sadly, some are not living anymore - like 29 year old Aurelia Brouwers whose life was cut short by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons; Tom Mortier’s mother who was euthanized for depression; and Margreet Van der Valk’s mother who was euthanized without request . I carry these heartbreaking stories with me everywhere I speak.

At the end of my talks, people always ask me for one practical thing they can do to stem the tide. Yes, we must step up to inform our politicians and medical professionals of what these laws imply. Sharing these films are a great start. However we must do more. We must challenge ourselves daily to become a prophet of hope: the reason for someone’s tomorrow. It could be as simple as visiting elderly parents, volunteering to drive someone to the hospital or playing Scrabble for an hour with a senior in a nursing home. These are ways we inspire hope in others so they don’t reach for these laws.

It’s been quite a journey creating these films along with with Alex Schadenberg - a true Prophet of Hope for our times. Thanks, too for inspiring me to take this ‘show on the road’ and inspire others. You can be sure I’ll be toasting your 20th - perhaps from some Irish pub in the land down under!

Kevin Dunn can be reached through his Website: www.KevinDunn.info

Fatal Flaws Screening Helps Defeat Assisted Suicide proposal in Guernsey.

Kevin Dunn with Dr Carmen Wheatley

By Kevin Dunn
Director - Fatal Flaws

“During the government debate there was a moving moment when Deputy Graham McKinley, after announcing he had seen the Fatal Flaws film on Alderney, and how moved he was by it, bravely explained why he was abandoning the Requete.” 

Dr. Carmen Wheatley, Executive Director, Assisted Living, Guernsey (UK)

I had always hoped this film would be a game-changer. Looks like it’s happening.

• Assisted suicide proposal overwhelmingly defeated in Guernsey.

I’ve just returned from The Channel Islands, UK where we had two screenings of Fatal Flaws: Legalizing Assisted Death. One in Guernsey and another in Alderney. These screenings happened just prior to a three day debate and vote on assisted suicide. According to The Guardian, “if the Requete had passed, Guernsey would have become the first place in the British Isles to offer euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses.” Instead they voted to improve palliative care on the island.

Newspaper ad promoting Fatal Flaws

The sponsor of the screening, Dr. Carmen Wheatley, Orthomolecular Oncology Medical Researcher and Executive Director of Assisted Living, Guernsey, reached out to me a few weeks ago and asked me if I would come to the Island before the vote. 

Order the film - Fatal Flaws and the Fatal Flaws pamphlets today.

In an email Dr Wheatley sent me today, she told me that during the debate, a Deputy for Alderney revealed to all that he had seen your film there, had become very moved by the content, listened to the Alderney folk, and changed his mind. The other Requeteers were not expecting this final coup de grace. In a more formal statement, she wrote 

“In spite of misrepresentations of the film by campaigners, who refused to view it, and a mysterious blockade on TV and radio interviews from the one person on Guernsey, Kevin Dunn, who not only lives in a country, Canada, with such death legislation, but has been to no less than 6 jurisdictions/countries, interviewing doctors, patients, families on both sides of the divide, this documentary deeply impressed those few Deputies and the larger public who saw it.”

She went on to say, 

“To the extent that 1 of 2 Alderney representatives, who had originally, – and probably against his better judgement, been one of the signatories of the Requete, found the courage shortly before the decisive vote to publicly and dramatically renege on his allegiance to the Requete, thus adding to the strength of the decisive final No vote.”

In the film, I asked journalist Gerbert Van Loenen from The Netherlands, “who is telling the other side of the story?” He said, “I’m afraid no one.” 

• Fatal Flaws will change the way you view assisted death.

Through the testimonies of so many brave and passionate people in this film, we were able to do just that: tell stories of a highly underrepresented group of people and shine a light on a dark corner of the political and medical landscape. 

What could be more important than saving the lives of the vulnerable?

Kudos to the entire FF team.

Kevin Dunn, Director

Netherlands Euthanasia "experts" advocate for child euthanasia - with or without consent.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Journal Pediatrics (January 10, 2018) features an "Ethics Round" article titled: Should Pediatric Euthanasia be Legalized?

The Journal article features comments by proponents and opponents of child euthanasia. The article clarifies that, in the Netherlands, euthanasia is a legal option for children (ages 12 - 18) with parental permission and to newborns, based on the Groningen Protocol, who are younger than one. The Journal article states that these deaths are rare.

It is particularly concerning that the Netherlands "experts" Marije Brouwer, Ma, Els Maeckelberghe, PhD, and Eduard Verhagen, MD, JD, PhD, stated:

We would advise the Minister of Health to consider removing age restrictions from both the Euthanasia Regulation and the Groningen Protocol. This would make euthanasia accessible for competent and incompetent children who suffer unbearably when there is no other way to relieve their suffering. It would show trust in mature minors, parents, and doctors to make the right decisions.

Our advice to remove age restrictions is in line with important Dutch values. We believe in self-determination, as manifested by the voluntary request that initiates the procedure, and in the beneficence of physicians to end unbearable suffering when there are no other options. 

We would cautiously remind the Minister that the group of incompetent patients who also might suffer unbearably is not limited to the age of 12 but encompasses patients of all ages.

Brouwer, Maeckelberghe and Verhagen state that euthanasia should be permitted when a person is incompetent to request death by lethal injection and that the decision should be left to the beneficence of physicians. Choice and autonomy were never centrally important, since the law always gave physicians the power to decide. People with disabilities should be concerned when lethal injection can be done based on the beneficence of a physician.

Euthanasia of incompetent people is not new in the Netherlands or Belgium. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (August 3, 2017) found 431 terminations of life without request in the Netherlands in 2015. Similar studies indicate that euthanasia without consent is even more common in Belgium.

Christopher Kaczor disagreed with Brouwer, Maeckelberghe and Verhagen. Kaczor states that, based on equality. Kaczor states:

Defenders of the Dutch law permitting intentional killing of infants as well as adults and children 12 years of age and older presuppose an empirical claim: killing a person is “the only escape from the situation” of unbearable suffering. This claim is false. 

Current Dutch law does allow for non voluntary euthanasia of infants, an allowance incompatible with the principles of justice because such infants do not consent to have their lives ended. If all persons are to have equal rights and deserve equal protection of the law, then disabled persons (whether they are infants, children, or adults) deserve the same basic protections from intentional homicide.

The Journal article also features comments from long-time euthanasia promoter, Margaret Battin and opposition is expressed by John D. Lantos.

Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen, in his book - Do You Call This A Life? explains that euthanasia without consent based on beneficence, was part of the euthanasia practice, in the Netherlands, from the beginning. van Loenen, in his book, examines the stories and cultural change that led to the legalization and then acceptance of euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Victoria Australia: Extending euthanasia, even before the bill is written.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on their website on May 5, 2017.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

Anyone looking at the experience in Canada since euthanasia and assisted suicide laws came into force last year, should be struck by the moves to extend the law so soon after they had been passed. After all, when you look to Belgium and Holland and even Oregon USA, the moves to expand their laws and/or the application of their laws has taken some time to develop.

There are many reasons why the European and Oregon situations have taken time to see the various incremental legal and effective interpretational changes gather momentum. In Belgium and Holland the statutes were written in very broad terms relating to unbearable and irretrievable suffering. While the understanding at the time of their debates focussed on euthanasia as a 'last resort' option for people in the last stages of a terminal illness, the wording never restricted application in that way.

In the last five years and more there has been a continual pushing at the edges of the community understanding of the breadth of the law. Euthanasia for tinnitus, for blindness, for psychological suffering, for the accrual of minor complaints associated with old age, for fear of entering a nursing home - all unthinkable in the beginning. Add to that the 2013 statute amendment to include children in Belgium and the current discussion in Holland in respect to assisted suicide for people over 70 years of age who are simply 'tired of life', and one can legitimately wonder where it will all stop.

As Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen once observed:

“Making euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal started a development we did not foresee. The old limit ‘thou shalt not kill’ was abandoned, a new limit is yet to be found.”

Canada seems bent on catching up with the Benelux countries at some pace.

In Victoria, Australia, there also seems to be something of a rush.

A Ministerial Advisory Panel charged with the role of consulting about how to make assisted suicide safe, is due to provide an interim report to Premier Daniel Andrews any day now. The final report is due in July and legislation is slated for the second half of this year.

The Panel's reference was the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Victorian Parliament report in the matter of the 'Inquiry into End of Life Choices' that was finalised in mid-2016.

Recommendation 49 of that report called upon the Victorian Parliament to legislate assisted suicide for people, “suffering from a serious and incurable condition which is causing enduring and unbearable suffering” and that these persons must be “at the end of life (final weeks or months of life)”.

So, not necessarily but most likely a terminal illness but still only for those at the very end or, as the Dutch talked about: a 'last resort' option.

Politically this makes sense. The game, if I can call it that, is to gain 50% plus one support in the two chambers of parliament. The logic is, of course, that it is the first hurdle that is the hardest. Better to get something on the statute books rather than risking yet another loss from trying for too much.

In September last year, Victorian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy warned pro-euthanasia advocates not to be too greedy:

“Politicians need to ask themselves: is it about being pure or is it about saying ‘let’s get the best result we can’?”

This warning did not stop Victorian euthanasia supporter, Dr Rodney Syme from entering the debate immediately arguing for an expansion of eligibility to include "neurological failure, such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and Parkinson's disease, who have progressive diseases, and those with profound stroke or high quadriplegia who have a static condition, may have an ill-defined trajectory to death, and while suffering unbearably, may be discriminated against by narrow legislation." It is precisely the same sort of argument that could (and will) be made for a later amendment if Syme does not get his way. Think about that.

Indeed, everyone knows that later extension is a possibility via an amendment bill. Euthanasia for children was originally considered for the first Belgian debate. Trudo Lemmens relates that, ‘children were explicitly excluded from the ambit of the original law because “it was deemed so controversial that including it may have threatened approval of the Euthanasia Bill.”’

Back in Victoria, there have been a few 'leaks' about the possible direction the Panel's report might take. One article pointed to a plan not to provide effective conscience protections for doctors.

Today we are told that the Panel will recommend a prognisis-based qualifier:

But the advisory panel wants to extend the timeline and the government is believed to be considering three options: 24 months, 12 months or six months.

It is mere speculation on my part, but it would seem that this kind of qualifier might be a compromise position between the Parliamentary Inquiry's recommendation and the agitation of the likes of Syme. Either way, it is much broader than the original “at the end of life (final weeks or months of life)”.

This leaves many questions unanswered: Does this call into question the judgement of the members of the Parliamentary Committee? Is it now considered that the Victorian public are open to this kind of extension where those who submitted to the Parliamentary Inquiry were clearly not? Will the members of the Parliamentary Committee rebuke the Panel for their extension?

Lack of answers aside, the idea of incremental extension is now out in the open for all to see. No Victorian MP can ignore it. They now need to question, not whether the model presented satisfies their judgement on a set of limits, but that their vote in support of any framework will most certainly provide precursory endorsement and impetus to later extension.

Dutch Health Minister, Edith Schippers, speaking enthusiastically about euthanasia recently, confirmed: "One thing is certain: on euthanasia and assisted suicide, we will never be finished."

The Panel's interim report is likely to be made public in the next few weeks.

Euthanasia: Crossing the clear bright line.

This article was written by Paul Russell and published by HOPE Australia on October 29, 2016

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell is the director of HOPE Australia.

Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen once observed about euthanasia in his homeland that, 'Making euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal started a development we did not foresee. The old limit ‘thou shalt not kill’ was abandoned, a new limit is yet to be found.'

When we abandon the principle that the law (in this case the criminal code prohibitions on homicide) protects all of its citizens equally, as van Loenen observes, drawing a new line is arbitrary. More than that; it is likely to shift further in ways that perhaps the Dutch did not foresee but that we at least, can now reflect upon given their experiences.

Not that we necessarily need to look halfway across the globe to observe the phenomenon.

In South Australia only in this last week we saw that, notionally at least, something like half of the members of the House of Assembly seemed willing to support a bill that would have made euthanasia available to any adult who claimed that they were experiencing 'unbearable and hopeless suffering'.

No, we do not have euthanasia on the statute books; so how, you ask, is this an example of van Loenen's thesis?

South Australia has been the epicentre of euthanasia debate with something like 14 or 15 bills introduced over the last two decades - some of them simultaneously in both chambers. None of them have been as extreme as the bill mentioned. In hindsight, now that the bill seemingly will not progress further, the mover and the euthanasia lobby that supported it may now reflect that their project was overly ambitious; running well ahead of the zeitgeist.

And so it was. What shocked me, however, was the level of support it did receive. Five or ten years ago such a regime would have been dismissed far more easily.

The bill would have created a starting point for euthanasia similar to the Dutch law and almost identical to the Belgian statute. Yet the public discourse was largely framed around what we might call the 'classic cases' at the very end of life. Replete with personal stories, we were told, both implicitly and explicitly, that these were the kind of cases the bill was designed for. As with the Dutch law, according to van Loenen, there was a 'devil in the detail' in this bill that would provide for euthanasia in situations that the public could not forsee.

The question we need to be asking, always, is not 'who is the bill designed for?' but 'what will the bill allow?'. There is clearly public support for the idea of euthanasia, as evidenced in the polls, but the detail seems to escape scrutiny.

Purchase the Euthanasia Deception documentary and show it in your community.

Such was the campaigning strategy adopted by Andrew Denton, his campaign called 'Go Gentle' and his co-beligerents, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. They jointly created an on-line campaign tool called 'BetheBill' where people could register to 'BetheBill' using their social media profiles and the automated structure would replace the pronoun 'person' in the text of the failed bill with their own name and send a copy of the thus amended bill to every South Australian member of parliament.

Nowhere does the 'BetheBill' website explain to the potential supporter that the bill in question would allow for euthanasia for any adult. All it says before a supporter clicks through to make it happen is: 'One day you, or someone you love, may be dying and want this choice. No Australian should be left to die in unrelievable pain.' It plays on the public perception that euthanasia would only ever be for a few 'hard cases'.

And so, email in boxes of members of parliament were clogged, for sometime, with virtually identical emails from people who had no real idea of what they were supporting. That many of these 'BetheBill' supporters came from interstate or overseas or were from fake facebook profiles such as that of 'Desmond Tutu' (who apparently lives in Sydney and uses the profile picture of Bozo the Clown) registered a level of cynicism and annoyance with a number of MPs.

In hindsight we cannot avoid the conclusion that all of this was over-reach; a misjudgement of the ability of parliamentarians to assess the true situation - even in the face of what seemed like a tsunami of public and media support.

What it does tell us, very clearly, is that - regardless of whatever minimalist approach is presented for debate - what the movers really want is so much more.

Victorian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy warned euthanasia supporters of this kind of over-reach behaviour recently in regards to what we are led to believe is the inevitable tabling of a euthanasia and/or assisted suicide bill in the Victorian Parliament sometime in the near future.

Under the headline: Euthanasia reform: ‘Go softly or law will fail’, the Australian article framed the story this way:

'Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy has warned radical ­euthanasia activists that any proposed assisted-suicide laws will be moderate, to enable broad community support and avoid failure because of a scare campaign. 

'Ms Hennessy said the Greens and the Sex Party should be ­“sensible and open-minded” if ­euthanasia laws were introduced to the Victorian parliament, ­imploring the minor parties not to scupper the reform on the pretence of ­policy purity. 

“To not do so would be an act of revisionism designed to make an important first step fail; it is not about you,” Ms Hennessy said. 

“Politicians need to ask themselves: is it about being pure or is it about saying ‘let’s get the best ­result we can’?”

But, once again, the euthanasia lobby cannot help itself; it cannot contain its enthusiasm in the wave of media support that has clouded the debate in Victoria as it has in South Australia.

Recommendation 49 of the Victorian Parliamentary Committee Report on 'end-of-life choices' tabled in July calls for a law for people, “suffering from a serious and incurable condition which is causing enduring and unbearable suffering” and that these persons must be “at the end of life (final weeks or months of life)”.

Dr Rodney Syme wrote recently to the Victorian Health Minister on behalf of the Victorian pro-euthanasia lobby, calling for an extension to these terms to include people who have an 'advanced incurable illness'; in otherwords, not simply those who are clearly close to dying.

Syme's logic is internally consistent and compelling if, in fact, the aim of such legislation is to relieve suffering. It is not only those who are close to death who suffer. This is the same sort of argument put to the Belgian people regarding child euthanasia in 2013 and is the same argument circling in Holland at the moment in regards to proposals for child euthanasia and euthanasia for people who are 'tired if life'.

But there's a significant difference between the Dutch and Belgian examples (above) and what Syme is presenting and what was presented in the bill in South Australia. The Dutch and the Belgians already have euthanasia on the statute books. Arguments for incremental extensions are easier to make once the beachhead is established.

Returning to van Loenen's observations, it should be obvious to anyone that once we abandon the equal protection of the law for every citizen from acts of homicide and assisting in suicide; wherever we choose to draw the line next will not have the same holding force as the criminal code.

We will have created exceptions that will later be tested by arguments such as those put by Syme; exceptions that will further erode the protection of the law, replacing it with the arbitrary decisions of individual doctors who, in effect, will become the law.

Study: "Tired of living" and dementia are common reasons for euthanasia at Dutch euthanasia clinic.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) analyzing the euthanasia deaths in the first year of operation at the Netherlands euthanasia clinic appears to have been done to prove that euthanasia is being done carefully at the clinic. 

The study: A study of the First Year of the End-of-Life Clinic for Physician-Assisted Dying in the Netherlands was published online on August 10, 2015.

The data shows that in its first year of operation (March 1, 2012 - March 1, 2013) the Netherlands euthanasia clinic received 645 requests for assisted death and lethally injected 162 people. 

Of the 162 who died by an assisted death, the data indicates that 6 assisted deaths were done for psychological reasons, 21 assisted deaths were done for cognitive decline, such as dementia and 11 assisted deaths were done based on "tired of living." Tired of living means that the person does not have any specific illness.

The study indicates that woman represented 62% (Table 1) of the requests for euthanasia and 65% (Table 3) of the euthanasia deaths.

This study represented the first year of operation for the euthanasia clinic. A recent news report indicated that the number of euthanasia deaths for psychiatric patients has increased substantially.  Last month, the media reported that, in the first six months of 2015, 18 euthanasia deaths were done based on psychiatric reasons at the euthanasia clinic. The media report stated:

This is more than double the total figure of 17 in 2014 as a whole, the clinic’s first half figures show. 

In addition, almost 100 psychiatric patients are on the waiting list for help, the NRC said. This is because of a shortage of psychiatrists to make the assessments and manage the requests.

The Netherlands euthanasia clinic has also been implicated in several controversial euthanasia deaths, for instance: 

• An incompetent woman with dementia died by euthanasia, even after the nursing home opposed the death.
• A healthy woman with Tinnitus died by euthanasia.
• A woman died by euthanasia because she didn't want to live in a nursing home.

A similar study examining 100 consecutive requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium was published on July 28, 2015 found that of the 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons 48 were approved for lethal injection and 35 died by lethal injection.

Theo Boer

Both studies appear to be in response to criticism of the expanding practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium.

In July 2014, Theo Boer, an ethicist and a nine year member of a Netherlands euthanasia regional review committee stated that:

I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view.

Boer changed his mind based on the increasing number of euthanasia deaths and the increasing reasons for euthanasia in the Netherlands. 

Boer is also concerned that people, who have years to live, are dying by euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The 2013 Netherlands euthanasia report indicated that the number of reported euthanasia deaths increased by 15% to 4829 and the number of euthanasia deaths for psychiatric reasons tripled to 42 and the number of euthanasia deaths for people with dementia had more than doubled to 97.

The Netherlands euthanasia clinic opened on March 1, 2012. They began with 15 mobile euthanasia teams and have now expanded to 39 mobile euthanasia teams. According to the study, there were 645 requests for euthanasia in the first year, 749 requests for euthanasia in the second year and 1035 requests for euthanasia in the third year.

Learn about how euthanasia became socially approved in the Netherlands by purchasing the book by Gerbert van Loenen, a Dutch journalist titled: Do You Call This A Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws.

Purchase the book or DVD: Do You Call This A Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws for: $20 for the book or $10 for the DVD of van Loenen's talk in Ottawa or (book and the DVD for $25) includes postage from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) by calling: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca

Book Review: Do You Call This A Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws.

Purchase the book or DVD: Do You Call This A Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws for: $20 for the book or $10 for the DVD of van Loenen's talk in Ottawa or (book and the DVD for $25) includes postage from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) by calling: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca

Do You Call this a Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands’ Right-to-Die Laws. By Gerbert van Loenen.

Book Review by Paul Russell;

the director of HOPE Australia and the Vice Chair of EPC-International

“What do you want to do when you leave school?” A casual conversation starter I think I’ve probably had with each of my children at some point – even repeatedly. It had an additional context when I raised it with Joseph recently in a quiet moment. 

Joseph, in his fourteen years had had probably more prospective careers than most of us could think of; ranging from a long period when he was convinced he would be a priest to only recently wanting to ‘go into business’ operating a pizzeria out of our kitchen (Mum had other ideas!).

Sometimes this kind of exchange is simply banter; a time filler exploring the thoughts and ideas of a child with ever-expanding horizons as the world opens up before him or her.

“A firefighter, Dad!” “But Joseph, the fire brigade probably won’t accept someone with Down syndrome, mate. It just won’t happen.”

Okay! I know! That sounds like a harsh response, but it’s not. Joseph and I have great conversations about all sorts of things. Anne and I are also as firmly committed to providing him with the very best educational and emotional platform we can. But we’ve done that for all our children, so that’s hardly surprising, even if fleshing that out requires somewhat a different approach from the others.

The question of disability is a consistent theme throughout Gerbert van Loenen’s book: Do You Call this a Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands’ Right-to-Die Laws. Ostensibly chronicling and analysing the history and progression of the Dutch affair with euthanasia, van Loenen’s crisp prose refers constantly to the changing and challenging of concepts in Dutch academia and politics in relation to the worth of human life. In summary: once human life is valued only in subjective terms of relative merit or worth, there is an inexorable extension of application, in terms of euthanasia laws, from a limited cohort to almost anyone.

Paul Russell: A statement we should all fear.

The article was published on the HOPE Australia website on March 4, 2015.

By Paul Russell 

The director of HOPE Australia and Vice Chair - EPC International

The theory and the practice of euthanasia simply don’t match and the rhetoric and reality are miles apart.

Dutch activist Dr Rob Jonquiere, head of the world body pressing for euthanasia, is in New Zealand peddling euthanasia up and down the country.

He has said some outrageous things, some of which I tackle below. But the most outrageous statement, one that we should all fear, he gave recently to the New Zealand media:

"Sometimes the only way to terminate the suffering is to take away the life."

‘What’s so outrageous about that?’ you may ask. Well, perhaps those who are used to hearing pro-euthanasia peddlers talking about people dying in pain might not notice immediately. But Jonquiere is not talking about pain, he’s talking about suffering. There’s a significant difference; one that should ring alarm bells.

Euthanasia is contagious.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Newsweek published an extensive article titled: Dying Dutch. The article focuses on stories supporting euthanasia and assisted suicide and information from people like Theo Boer, who, for nine years was a member of a Euthanasia Evaluation Committee but now opposes it, because euthanasia in the Netherlands has become out-of-control.

Under the heading - Death is Contagious, The Newsweek article reports:

In the first few years after the Netherlands decriminalized euthanasia in 2002, the number of cases declined. Then, in 2007, the statistics began a steady climb, an average jump of 15 percent a year...

Theo Boer, the ethicist, has some theories. Once a supporter of euthanasia, he’s now one of its most vocal critics. Among the reasons for the euthanasia boom, Boer suggests, is propaganda. Over the past decade, he says, Dutch journalist Gerbert van Loenen has been tracking a series of documentary films that depict euthanasia in a wholly positive light. “They do ask certain questions,” Boer says. “But they systematically ignore most critical questions, so that the general public is presented with an opinion that is completely good, and has no risks. This is contagious.”

Theo Boer

The number of deaths and the reasons for euthanasia is growing.

Another key factor: It’s getting easier each year to qualify for euthanasia. In the beginning, most of those eligible were terminally ill. Now doctors are helping people die if they no longer want to bear depression, autism, blindness or even being dependent on the care of others. “There are increasing numbers of double euthanasia—one of the partners is terminal and the other partner is care-dependent, they don’t want to live alone,” says Boer. One in 10 of the past 500 dossiers he has read contains some reference to “loneliness,” he adds. “Those are the cases where I have become increasingly uneasy.” 

The numbers support Boer. In 2012, 13 patients were euthanized after convincing a doctor they were suffering unbearably from mental illnesses ranging from depression to schizophrenia. The following year, the figure more than tripled, to 44. The number of patients with dementia who killed themselves grew from 43 in 2012 to 97 in 2013. “I’m afraid,” Boer says, “the situation in the Netherlands is out of control.” 

In 2005, lawmakers decriminalized another form of euthanasia—for babies. ...

Blurred boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Barbara Kay

Barbara Kay, a National Post columnist, has published two articles outlining the indepth analysis by the Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen, who is publishing an english translation of his book that is titled: Do You Call This a Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands’ Right-to-Die Laws.

In the past, van Loenen supported the Netherlands euthanasia law, but after his significant relationship became disabled, his experience caused him to question.

Kay outlines new information from van Loenen's book that was gathered from Dutch sources and articles. Much of the information has not been reported by the english media and almost none of the information has been presented through the lens of a Dutch journalist who has personally experienced the social change that resulted from the legalisation of euthanasia.

In her first article (National Post - January 28), Kay focused on the meaning of the Dutch euthanasia law. Most people view euthanasia as a form of "self-determination," but van Loenen explains why that is not the reason that the Netherlands legalized euthanasia. Kay wrote:

But the Netherlands’ euthanasia law does not recognize any such right. In 1984, the country’s Supreme Court accepted euthanasia, but rejected self-determination as the driver. The law in fact focuses on the right of the physician to exercise his compassion in what is deemed a “situation of necessity.” Citizens “may request,” but cannot demand, euthanasia. So in fact the law endorses a species of medical “paternalism.” Van Loenen claims this compassion-based perspective “is the opposite of self-determination,” which he continues to support.

Kay then uncovers the underbelly of the Netherlands euthanasia law.

One of van Loenen’s settled convictions is that what begins in compassion invariably creeps over to the dark side. Up to 1,000 Dutch citizens are killed every year without express consent, according to van Loenen, either because they are incompetent (dementia) or in comas, or too young. In 14% of the without-consent cases, people are actually competent, but not consulted. Typical reasons given for euthanasia by doctors in such cases are “consultation would have done more harm than good,” or “this course of action was clearly the best one for this patient,” or it was “the request or wish of family” — a far cry from the self-determination principle debate began with. 

These doctors have acted outside the law, but are rarely convicted, as judges are reluctant to call “termination of life without request”… murder. Indeed, van Loenen says, cultural acceptance of euthanasia has progressed to the point that it is no longer the physician who ends someone’s life without request who must justify his actions; rather it is the physician who decides to prolong a life perceived as meaningless who feels societal pressure.

In her second article, (National Post - February 4) Kay focuses on the difficulty that the Dutch have had limiting the euthanasia law. Kay wrote:

Dutch “Better Killed than Disabled” Bigotry

Wesley Smith

This article was originally published on Wesley Smith's blog.

By Wesley Smith

I have been reporting on the non-voluntary euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands for more than 20 years, the infanticide, euthanasia of the elderly “tired of life,” psychiatrists killing the mentally ill.

Often people hear this truth and yawn, “Oh, hum–but Brittany Maynard!”

Now, Gerbert van Loenen – a Dutch (once) euthanasia supporting journalist whose partner became disabled only to experience disdain from friends and doctors–has written a book that exposes a pronounced Netherlander death-is-better-than-disabled cultural attitudes. From a review by Barbara Kay in the National Post of Do You Call This a Life?

van Loenen found himself brooding over certain friends’ reactions to their situation. “It would have been better if he had died,” one said at the outset. 

Another told Niek when he expressed frustration, “You choose to go on living, so you have no right to complain.” Once “an average Dutchman who thought of euthanasia as one of the crown jewels of our liberal country,” van Loenen became “someone who was shocked by the harsh tone used by the Dutch when they talked about handicapped life.”

What happened when euthanasia became legal - The Netherlands Experience.

What happened when euthanasia became legal. The Netherlands experience.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The following is the video of the presentation by journalist, Gerbert van Loenen, from the Netherlands to the Euthanasia Symposium on October 4, 2014 in Ottawa-Gatineau.

While watching the video, you will notice that van Loenen is not opposed to euthanasia but rather he is explaining the changes that occurred in the Netherlands, from when euthanasia was first legalized until the present day. He refers to the Netherlands as the laboratory.

van Loenen explains how euthanasia has expanded in the Netherlands, not only in the number of yearly deaths by euthanasia, but also the reasons for euthanasia. After van Loenen has completed his explanation of the growth in the practice of euthanasia he states:

It's up to you to judge this development. You may be of the opinion that it is a disgrace that the position of the Netherlands has shifted this far, you can also be of the opinion that in all of these cases termination of life is the best of the available options, is indeed the lesser evil. The one thing you cannot do is deny that the boundaries are continually pushed back, moving the Netherlands a considerable distance from its original position. The discussion about one category of people for whom termination of life is suggested draws attention to an adjacent category of suffering individuals and the same arguments for termination of life can be applied to. And so the position of the Netherlands is shifting. Again, we need not consider this a disgrace. But the shift itself cannot be denied. 

Making euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal started a development we did not foresee. The old limit 'thou shalt not kill' was abandoned, a new limit is yet to be found.