Dutch doctor who euthanized woman with dementia, who resisted, says "just do it."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands Supreme Court recently approved the euthanasia death of an incompetent person with dementia who resisted at the time of death.

The woman with dementia, had stated in her power of attorney document that she would want to die by euthanasia rather than live in a care home. When the doctor came to inject her she resisted. The doctor tried to sedate the woman by putting drugs in her coffee but the woman continued to resist so the family held her down as the doctor injected her.

Marinou Arends

The Dutchnews.nl published parts of an interview that Marinou Arends gave Nieuwsuur television. Arends is the doctor who carried out the euthanasia death. Arends says that she would do it again and advised other doctors in similar situations to "just do it". The article states:

But although the woman repeatedly said she wanted to die, when asked directly, she would then say 'not yet'.

If you asked her: "What would you think if I were to help you die?", she would look at me bewildered and said: "That's going a bit far!"

Arends says that she asked the woman three times and each time she received a negative reply. She said without the confirmation she had to take this step and stated that even though it is good to get the confirmation, doctors should 'do it, just do it.'

Wesley Smith

Bioethicist, Wesley Smith, wrote that he didn't think it possible, but her wrongdoing is now even more apparent. Smith wrote:

The patient had said, while competent, that she would want euthanasia after becoming incompetent, but wanted to be the one to say when. She never did. But she wasn’t just silent on the question. The patient affirmatively told Arends that she did not want to be euthanized! Not once, not twice, but three times. 

Smith then quoted from the DutchNews.nl story:

Although it is not required by the letter of the law, doctors’ organisation the KNMG had considered it good practice to confirm that a dementia patient still wants euthanasia before the moment of death – even after all other strict requirements have been fulfilled. Concerns had been growing about what to do if someone was no longer mentally competent to make this decision, and the public prosecution said it brought a case against Arends to get more legal clarity. ‘It is good to get the confirmation: do it, just do it,’ acknowledged Arends, who said she had asked the patient three times and had a negative reply. ‘But I couldn’t get this confirmation, and without it I had to take this step. 

It was tremendously difficult, but for the best. I believed I was working within the boundaries of the law.’

The Dutch Supreme Court decision permits a doctor to lethally inject a person with dementia without confirming the final wishes of the person basing the euthanasia death on past statements.

The issue is that the woman with dementia resisted and said no. To say that it was acceptable for the doctor to kill this woman is the same as saying that someone with dementia cannot change their mind.

This decision opens the door to more euthanasia of people with dementia and more euthanasia without explicit consent.

More articles on this topic:

• Dutch court expands euthanasia law by acquitting doctor who euthanized a patient with dementia who resisted (Link). 
• Dutch court decision on 'coffee euthanasia' opens the door to dubious practices (Link).

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

Marinou Arends, a retired geriatric doctor

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

Marinou Arends, a retired geriatric doctor

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

Marinou Arends, a retired geriatric doctor

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

Conceiving the inconceivable: assisted suicide for people with mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Thank you to Dr Mark Komrad for sharing this superb paper by Bernardo Carpiniello published in the Journal of the Italian Society of Psychiatry. Carpiniello works in the Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health-Unit of Psychiatry, University of Cagliari Italy.

Carpiniello's paper - Conceiving the unconceivable: ethical and clinical concerns over assisted suicide for people with mental disorders is a significant paper dealing with the concerns related to euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. 

Carpiniello recognizes that only a few jurisdictions in the world have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide and in these jurisdictions only a small number of these deaths done to people with mental illness. 

Carpiniello points out that only 34% of Dutch physicians will participate in euthanasia for mental disorders.

Polling data indicates that there is more opposition by Dutch psychiatrists to psychiatric euthanasia with 53% of psychiatrists opposed to euthanasia for mental illness in 1995 and 63% in 2015. He suggests that the drop in support for psychiatric euthanasia is related to moral distress. He states:

Euthanasia or assisted suicide represents a typical example of a situation in which psychiatrists are faced with the impossibility of having to reconcile two moral obligations, a duty of care and respect of patient autonomy. To put it bluntly, for many psychiatrists euthanasia is ethically unacceptable, particularly as the main aim of psychiatry is to limit patients’ suffering.

Carpiniello then points out the position of the American Psychiatric Association.

“the American Psychiatric Association, in concert with the American Medical Association’s position on Medical Euthanasia, holds that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a non-terminally ill person for the purpose of causing death”

Carpiniello expresses his concern for the growth of euthanasia in countries where it is legal.

Euthanasia has been reported as a typical example of the “slippery slope, down which we have rolled to now allow something that was impossible to conceive as ever being acceptable”

Based on the increase in the number of euthanasia deaths and the expansion of acceptable reasons for euthanasia, I agree that incremental extensions will occur, if legalized.

Carpiniello tackles the question of suicide prevention, a primary public health concern. He quotes from the WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated:

“despite progress, one person still dies every 40 seconds from suicide. Every death is a tragedy for family, friends and colleagues. Yet suicides are preventable. We call on all countries to incorporate proven suicide prevention strategies into national health and education programmes in a sustainable way”

Carpiniello indicates that suicide prevention and suicide assistance are irreconcilable.

Indeed, an emphasis on suicide prevention from a public health perspective seems to be somewhat hard to reconcile ...for those countries simultaneously equipped with social and health policies established for the specific purpose of preventing suicide. Considering the specific role of psychiatry in preventing suicide, put in very simple terms the question is: what is the point of psychiatrists trying in every way possible to prevent suicide if the person concerned is entitled by law to seek assistance to commit this action?

Carpiniello examines the clinical concerns related to psychiatrists approving euthanasia. He points out:

“assessments of competency, sustained wish to die prematurely, depressive disorder, demoralization and ‘unbearable suffering’ in the terminally ill are clinically uncertain and difficult tasks ... As yet psychiatry does not have the expertise to ‘select’ those whose wish for hastened death is rational, humane and ‘healthy’

He explains that there are no objective measures to determine if someone has lasting or unbearable suffering.

Further to that Carpiniello finds that it is impossible to determine if treatment is futile for the patient. He states:

How can we confirm that a single case should definitely be considered untreatable if “there are no universal standards defining incurability in most cases of mental illness” and “there is no reliable mechanism to define incurable disease and determine medical futility for psychiatric care

He points out that there is no definition for the condition known as treatment resistant depression (TRD). He states:

it could prove an arduous task, even for the most experienced psychiatrist, to confirm that the case undergoing evaluation for assisted suicide is an actual TRD, ...Accordingly, it should be kept in mind how approx. 20% of Dutch patients requesting euthanasia had never undergone psychiatric hospitalization, 56% had refused some form of recommended treatment, and how in 27% of cases patients had requested assistance with dying from a physician who had not previously been involved in their treatment.

He continues by quoting from a study indicating that the majority of TRD patients get better.

More recently, 155 TRD patients were evaluated over a 1-7 year (median 36 months) follow-up, revealing how 39.2% of follow-up months were asymptomatic and 21.1% at sub-threshold symptom level, while 15.8% featured a mild, 13.9% moderate, and 10.0% severe depressive episode level, thus demonstrating how the majority of patients with TRD manage to achieve an asymptomatic state.

Further to that, he shows how there is no standard to assess competence or decisional capacity amongst these patients. He quotes from a study that was based on information from the Dutch Regional Review Committees that found:

in their evaluations physicians frequently stated that psychosis or depression did (or did not) affect capacity but provided little explanation to corroborate their opinions. The findings of this study once again raised a series of doubts as to the reliability of evaluation of decisional capacity of patients requesting EAS, at least in the Netherlands.

He then examines the phenomenon of transference and countertransference that exists in a therapeutic relationship with a patient and he states:

Some authors have criticized the assumption according to which a physician will always act in the interests of their patients, mostly because it fails to consider the doctor’s unconscious, and at times conscious, desire for the patient to die and alleviate distress for all concerned, including the physician. ...Doctors who are affected by countertransference or who have psychologically committed themselves to PAS may be prone to accepting patients’ reasons for PAS at face value without thorough exploration”

He then explains how physician/patient relationships can lead to pseudoempathy. He states:

One of the most frequently cited consequences of countertransference is over-identification with the patient, giving rise to a so-called ‘pseudoempathy’, a condition resulting in the physician experiencing the feeling that the patient’s suicidalwish is ‘normal’ and that they would feel the same way.

Carpiniello examines what he calls, the undesiralbe consequences of assisted suicide. He sites several concerns including:

• “... will psychiatrists conclude from the legalization of assisted death that it is acceptable to give up on treating some patients? If so, how far will the influence of that belief spread?”
• data from the Netherlands, reports “56% of cases in which social isolation or loneliness was important enough to be mentioned in the report”, arguing that “the latter evokes the concern that physician assisted death served as a substitute for effective psychosocial intervention and support”
• EAS in psychiatric patients may be detrimental in the advancement of research and implementation of new treatments, given that it “may reinforce poor expectations of the medical community for mental illness treatment and contribute to a relative lack of progress in developing more effective therapeutic strategies” 
• “What consequences on social representations of mental illnesses, on how to deal with a mental illness and on professional profile if psychiatrists recognize that life with mental illness – even if “only” in individual cases – is not worth living?

Carpiniello concludes that no firm conclusions can be drawn based on data related to euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Carpiniello's paper clearly indicates that the negative consequences related to euthanasia for mental disorders suggest that this should not be done.

Euthanasia and Organ Donation. Questioning the "dead donor" rule.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have written and published several articles on the issue of euthanasia and organ donation. Euthanasia is being promoted as a great source of organs for donation.

A problem with the seduction of assisted death coupled with organ donation is that it turns killing into a "social good" and it creates pressure to remove or ignore the "dead donor" rule. Euthanasia by organ donation provides healthier organs than organ donation after euthanasia.

A (May 2020) article by Claudia Wallis published in Scientific America outlines how euthanasia coupled with organ donation turns killing into a "social good."

Wallis focuses on the euthanasia death of Fred Gillis. Wallis writes:

Gillis had not been a fan of the euthanasia law, but when he learned he could combine MAID with a plan to donate organs, “he was ecstatic,”

Gillis's widow, Lana Gregoire says:

“His attitude was, ‘ALS, you can't take this away. We're going to give life to other people.’”

Notice how Wallis emphasizes how Gillis had not been a fan of euthanasia but when coupled with organ donation he was ecstatic. This is a typical propaganda tool.

Wallis then writes about how the Netherlands has been allowing euthanasia coupled with organ donation for several years but in the United States where several states have legalized assisted suicide, supposedly, assisted suicide has not been coupled with organ donation.

The article ends by suggesting that imminent death donation could replace the "dead donor" rule. Wallis writes:

Fred Gillis was able to donate two kidneys, his lungs and his liver when he died in April 2018. “He knew he was giving life, and that's all that mattered,” Gregoire says. She and their three kids were by his side and toasted him that evening—at a hockey bar. “We knew he would like that.”

I guess the message is that we should celebrate killing Fred Gillis by lethal injection because his death provided organs for several people.

Once again, killing begets more killing. There is no "social good" in killing one person even to provide healthy organs for another person. This thinking will lead to euthanasia by organ donation which has no limits to its ethical and murderous outcome.

Dutch Court decision on 'coffee euthanasia' opens the door to dubious practices

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands Supreme Court recently approved euthanasia for incompetent people with dementia who had made a previous request for euthanasia.

The case concerned the euthanasia death of a woman with dementia, who had stated in her power of attorney document that she wanted euthanasia but when the doctor came to inject her she resisted. The doctor attempted to sedate the woman by putting the drugs in her coffee but she continued to resist so the doctor had the family hold her down while the doctor lethally injected her.

In January 2017, a Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committee decided that the doctor had contravened the rule of law but that she had done it in "good faith."

According to Reuters, the Supreme Court found that:

The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness. 

The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests. This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers. 

“A doctor can carry out an (earlier) written request for euthanasia from people with advanced dementia,”

Theo Boer

Professor Theo Boer, a former member of a Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committee (2005 - 14), wrote about his concerns about the Supreme Court decision that were published by Trouw in the Netherlands (google translated).

Boer describes the case in Trouw:

The Supreme Court recently ruled on coffee euthanasia. A 74-year-old patient with dementia had stated in a living will that she wanted euthanasia if she ended up in a nursing home. When that indeed happened and she became incapacitated, she gave varying signals: most of the time she didn't want to live, but sometimes she was having a good time. Although the doctor had put something calming in her coffee, the woman resisted during the euthanasia. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctor had acted correctly by taking the patient's advance directive as a compass.

Boer expresses his concern that the number of euthanasia deaths for people with advanced dementia will increase and he questions how these decisions will be made based on the fact that these people are incompetent. He then expresses his concern for what he calls, "dubious euthanasia." He writes:

This also increases the risk of dubious euthanasia. Because people with advanced dementia are by definition not competent (many are even aphrodisiac), the practical request for euthanasia comes from the family. The doctor (nursing home doctor or doctor of the Expertise Center for Euthanasia) may be independent, but he will rely heavily on their judgment when weighing the agony of suffering. After all, the doctor usually did not know the patient before. That opens the door to framing. Despite good intentions, family value judgments ("I would never want to be demented," "What kind of life is that?") Take on a strong role. It cannot be excluded that financial and emotional considerations are a motivating force.

Boer than expresses that the Dutch Supreme Court decision proves that there is not a "border" to euthanasia even as other countries, when debating euthanasia, social distance themselves from the Dutch euthanasia program.

Boer concludes by pointing out that this decision will likely lead to a new opportunities to expand euthanasia. Based on "legal equality and compassion" why would euthanasia be limited to people with dementia who previously requested euthanasia when people who did not request euthanasia also suffer?

The only bright line is rejecting euthanasia. Once it is legal it is unfair or it lacks "compassion" to deny it to others, who are also "suffering."

Dutch Supreme Court approves euthanasia for dementia.

This article was published by National Review online on April 21, 2020.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

More than 20 years ago, the Dutch Supreme Court approved the assisted suicide of a woman in despair because her children had died. So we shouldn’t be surprised that it has now explicitly approved the forced euthanasia of patients with dementia if they asked to be killed before becoming incompetent. From Reuters:

The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness.

The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests. This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers.

“A doctor can carry out an (earlier) written request for euthanasia from people with advanced dementia,” the Supreme Court said in a summary of its decision.

What the Reuters story failed to mention — and apparently the Supreme Court found to be irrelevant — is that the case in question involved a woman who fought against being killed. Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection. Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide “when” the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination “choice” was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.

But why would the Dutch Supreme Court let inconvenient facts get in the way of furthering the Netherlands’ ever-expanding national killing policy that already permits infanticide, joint geriatric euthanasia of married couples, termination of the mentally ill, conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting, and the lethal injections of people with disabilities?

Covid-19 crisis demonstrates the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical.

Euthanasia is not an essential service.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, the author of the book Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, and Theo Boer, a former member of a Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committee (2005 - 14) collaborated to write the article: What Covid-19 has revealed about euthanasia, that was published by Spiked on April 14, 2020.

The authors begin the article by commenting on Covid-19 and healthcare:

There has not been, in living memory, more focus on healthcare, the vital role of doctors, the sacrifices made by nurses, and the wonderful efforts of everyone involved in the sector. Amid the coronavirus crisis, daily heroism, the scale of human loss, and the awful scenes in hospitals underline what is important – and what is not.

Theo Boer

They authors comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in the Netherlands:

It will surprise some that in the Netherlands, the only dedicated clinic providing euthanasia and assisted suicide has closed. Euthanasia Expertise Centre (formerly known as End of Life Clinic) has suspended all euthanasia procedures. The clinic’s website says that existing procedures have been put on hold and new patients are no longer admitted. The centre – which in 2019 alone ended the lives of 898 patients suffering from cancers, psychiatric problems, early on-set dementia, and accumulated age-related complaints – is willing to make an exception only for those expected to die soon and those who may soon lose their capacity for decision-making.

They comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Belgium:

Similarly, in Belgium, Jacqueline Herremans, a member of the federal commission reviewing euthanasia, has noted that there are few resources and even fewer doctors available for euthanasia at the moment: ‘The most important thing right now is that we fight the coronavirus.’

They then comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Canada:

In Canada, authorities are also shutting down services. For a process that requires two different medical assessments and witnesses, the lives involved are not worth the risk. According to the Globe and Mail, two places in Ontario, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2016, have stopped providing medical assistance in dying (MAID) because of the coronavirus pandemic (one has since resumed for existing patients and those whose deaths are imminent).

In Ontario, only Hamilton and Ottawa are known to have decided that euthanasia is not an essential service. 

The authors point out that the Netherlands euthanasia clinic state that euthanasia is not a priority during the Covid-19 crisis. The statement from the euthanasia clinic follows an opposite statement last year where Steven Pleiter, the director of the clinic said:

‘If the situation is unbearable and there is no prospect of improvement, and euthanasia is an option, it would be almost unethical [of a doctor] not to help that person’

The authors say that palliative care institutions have not shut-down during the Covid-19 pandemic.

So what has the Covid-19 pandemic taught us about euthanasia? The authors state:

What the Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated is that the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical. In the Netherlands in the 1980s, assisted dying started out as the ultimate solution to impending horrible deaths. In present times, with a high level of care for the dying available in most countries with good healthcare, assisted dying is not about actual deaths, but about deaths that people fear. The reality is that most people die peaceful deaths. But many fear loss of control and find the prospect of others caring for them terrifying. 

Covid-19 brings the reality of death, the necessity of caring for others and being cared for by others, into our living rooms, making the preciousness of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths real. We see the humanity of the elderly and frail; no longer are they burdens to be dispatched from this world, but victims of horrifying disease that all are invested in fighting.

The authors conclude by stating:

"Perhaps, though, we can remember this time when we made huge sacrifices to preserve every life, no matter how frail and vulnerable. We can remember this time when euthanasia no longer seemed necessary."

Thank you Kevin and Theo. Euthanasia is not an essential service and it is not healthcare.

Popular articles opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

1. Sick Kids Hospital Toronto will euthanize children with or without parental consent - Oct 10, 2018.

2. Paediatric Palliative Care Symposium and child euthanasia - February 26, 2018.

3. Declaration of Hope – Jan 1, 2016.

4. Fatal Flaws film will change the way you view assisted death - June 8, 2018.

5. Guide to answering the Canadian MAID consultation questionnaire - Jan 15, 2020.

6. Margaret Dore: Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice - Feb 17, 2011.

7. Kitty Holman: 5 reasons why people devalue the elderly – May 25, 2010.

8. Healthy 24-year-old Belgian woman who was approved for euthanasia, will live. Nov 12, 2015.

9. Kate Kelly: Mild stroke led to mother’s forced death by dehydration – Sept 27, 2011.

10.  The Euthanasia Deception documentary. - Sept 30, 2016.

11. Healthy 24 year old Belgian woman was scheduled for euthanasia - June 24, 2015.

12. Legalizing euthanasia saves money. Jan 23, 2017.

13. Boycott Me Before You - "disability death porn" - May 26, 2016.

14. Depressed Belgian woman dies by Euthanasia – Feb 6, 2013.

15. Dr's Annette Hanson & Ronald Pies: 12 Myths about Assisted Suicide and Medical Aid in Dying. July 9, 2018.

16. Physically healthy 23-year-old Belgian woman is being considered for euthanasia - October 14, 2019.

17.  Euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands – Sept 25, 2012.

18. Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness. – Jan 14, 2013.

19. Netherlands euthanasia review committee: euthanasia done on a woman with dementia was done in "good faith" -  Jan 28, 2017.

20. Mother upset after doctor urged her to approve assisted death for her daughter with disabilities - July 26, 2017.

21. Assisted suicide law prompts insurance company to deny coverage to terminally ill woman - Oct 20, 2016.

22. Woman who died by euthanasia, may only have had a bladder infection - Nov 14, 2016.

23. Judge upheld decision. Assisted suicide is prohibited in California. May 31, 2018.

24. New Mexico assisted suicide bill is the most extreme bill - Dec 21, 2018.

25. Woman with Anorexia Nervosa dies by euthanasia in Belgium – Feb 10, 2013.

26. 29-year-old healthy Dutch woman died by assisted death for psychiatric reasons. Jan 15, 2018. 

Become a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition ($25) membership.

More important articles:

• Belgian 2018 euthanasia report. A 247% increase since 2010.
• Netherlands 2018 euthanasia report: Deaths are lower, we are concerned about euthanasia for completed life.
• Study: More than 1000 Belgian deaths were hastened without request in 2013.
• Oregon 2019 assisted suicide report. Oregon assisted suicide deaths increase again.
• Washington State, nearly 25% more assisted suicide deaths in 2018.
• California assisted suicide report. 337 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2018.
• Swiss assisted suicide deaths increase by 18% in 2018.
• Canada: Approximately 5000 euthanasia deaths in 2019 and 13,000 since legalization.
• Supreme Court of Canada euthanasia decision was irresponsible and dangerous.
• Ontario: Euthanasia deaths rise quickly with nearly 1800 reported deaths in 2019.
• Quebec euthanasia - Third report, 142 unaccounted deaths.
• Do Not Kill Me: I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 

Is the Netherlands refusing to treat elderly Covid-19 patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Salvador Aragonés published by Aleteia.org claims that the Netherlands is rationing healthcare by denying treatment to patients based on age. Aragonés also claims that the Netherlands is blaming the financial crisis in Italy and Spain as caused by their medical treatment policy. Aragonés writes (google translated);

A great scandal is caused in Europe, and not only in Europe, with the systematic attitude of the Netherlands in treating coronavirus patients in their territory by age, even before their hospitals are full. 

According to statements by Dr. Frits Rosendaal, head of clinical epidemiology at the Leiden University Medical Center, and a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences and Art, with many awards and recognized merits. This well known doctor in the Netherlands is now battling the coronavirus, comments on how hospital admissions for the Covid-19 virus are followed in the Netherlands, while criticizing the way of life of Italy and Spain. 

The doctor (Rosendaal) said: “In Italy, the ICU capacity is managed very differently [from the Dutch]. They admit patients that we would not include because they are too old. The elderly have a very different position in Italian culture." He (Rosendaal) does not understand how in these southern European countries they admit “old people to the ICU”. The Netherlands does not hospitalize the weak and the elderly in order to make room for young people. He attributes it to a “cultural difference” between the Netherlands and the Latin countries.

Aragonés links the Dutch policy of not treating elderly Covid-19 patients with euthanasia. He states (google translated):

...in the Netherlands as in Belgium, euthanasia has been applied for years, according to the authorities, “voluntary”. However, in Germany, and in France, Spain and Italy, they have received elderly patients from these countries to be cured, not of coronaviruses, but of anything, because they do not trust the hospitals of their country: euthanasia is not Voluntary, they say, nor is it respected - not infrequently - the will of the person to whom euthanasia is applied.

Aragonés then states that Dutch finance minister Wopke Hoekstra is urging the European parliament to investigate "wasted finances" in Portugal and Spain related to Covid-19.

Treatment and care related to the Covid-19 has clearly affected relations between European nations.

On March 28, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a bulletin upholding the equality and human rights of people with disabilities and the elderly concerning treatment decisions and healthcare allocation.

Euthanasia clinic shuts down amid Coronaviris Crisis.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Euthanasia clinic

The Netherlands euthanasia clinic has temporarily shut-down amid the Coronavirus crisis. This is the euthanasia clinic that reported euthanasia requests, in 2019, were up by 22% and euthanasia deaths increased to 898 from 727 in 2018. This is also the euthanasia clinic that specializes in euthanasia for psychiatric reasons and euthanasia for people with dementia or questionable competency.

The announcement from the euthanasia clinic (google translated) follows:

Corona crisis hits Euthanasia Expertise Center

The Corona crisis also affects the assistance of the Euthanasia Expertise Center. In the interest of public health, our patients, their loved ones and employees of the expertise center, it is no longer responsible to continue our current care provision.

Euthanasia expertise center temporarily will not accept new patients; clients are requested to submit their request at a later date. In addition, the care for current patients of the Euthanasia Expertise Center is suspended. Existing processes are put on hold and resumed at a later date. If euthanasia has already been agreed or promised, euthanasia can continue on condition that the group of attendees is limited to those who are absolutely necessary. Urgent case histories of current patients from the center of expertise are also dealt with, as long as a doctor and nurse are available for this. This concerns case histories of terminal patients or patients where there is an important risk that the ability to exercise will be compromised.

Unavoidable
...However, special circumstances force us to take these inevitable steps. However harsh: euthanasia care cannot be identified as a top priority in health care. The risk of infection is high and the expertise center employs ambulatory doctors and nurses who also work elsewhere. For example, they are general practitioners or work in the intensive care unit of a hospital. Other healthcare providers are retired and themselves fall under the definition of the group of "vulnerable".

Euthanasia consultants
The measures apply until April 6. The government's date is leading for the Euthanasia Expertise Center. Our euthanasia consultants continue to provide (general practitioner) doctors in the Netherlands with telephone support.

EPC has not obtained the 2019 Netherlands euthanasia report, but the 2018 Netherlands euthanasia report indicated that euthanasia had slightly dropped in 2018, likely because of the court case related to the incompetent woman who died by euthanasia, even though she had resisted. 

In the Netherlands there were 6126 reported euthanasia deaths in 2018. In 2018, the statistics included a new category where 205 people died by euthanasia based on: multiple problems derived from the aging process. I consider this category as an acceptance, in part, of euthanasia for "completed life".