Euthanasia for "completed Life" to be debated in the Dutch parliament.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Dutchnews.nl is reporting that the Liberal Democratic Party will be introducing legislation to extend euthanasia to people who are not sick or dying, but who state that their life is complete.

The Dutchnews article quotes recent polling that suggests that 55% of those polled in the Netherlands supported euthanasia for people who are "tired of living" while 33% opposed the measure.

The Dutchnews article explains that new legislation will be introduced next year.

The Liberal democratic party is drawing up its own legislation which would make it possible for the over-75s who consider their life is at an end to be helped to die and aims to present the measure to parliament early next year.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democratic Party is basing the "completed life" on age 75. What makes 75 a death age?

Last month I reported that a Belgian politician is also planning to introduce legislation to expand euthanasia for reasons of the "completed life."

There is no definition for "completed life" which means this type of legislation is designed to abandon people with suicidal ideation to death lethal drugs.

Netherlands politician pushes to expand euthanasia to people who are "tired of living."

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In October 2016 I reported that the Dutch government were considering expanding the euthanasia law to include people who are not physically or psychologically suffering but who believe that their "life is complete."

The issue of the "completed life" was not legislated at that time, but now the Dutch media reported that Pia Dijkstra, a D66 parliamentarian, stated that she is planning to introduce "completed life" legislation, next year. The DutchNews.NL reported:

The Liberal democratic party is drawing up its own legislation which would make it possible for the elderly who consider their life is at an end to be helped to die. D66 parliamentarian Pia Dijkstra told the AD in an interview that she plans to introduce a draft bill early next year. 

Ministers are currently looking into the options for assisted suicide for people who are ‘tired of life’ but, says Dijkstra, health minister Hugo de Jonge is not working quickly enough. 

‘The minister obviously senses the urgency less than I do,’

In March 2017, the DutchNews.NL reported that the Dutch doctors association (KNMG) opposed expanding the euthanasia law to prescribe lethal drugs for "completed life." The KNMG stated that expanding the euthanasia law for reasons of a "completed life" would undermine the current euthanasia law. The DutchNews.NL stated:

However, separate legislation for people with ‘no medical grounds’ for the wish to die could have an undesirable social effect, by stigmatising the elderly, the KNMG said. Instead, the government should invest in measures to make sure the elderly do not feel their lives are pointless.

The Netherlands euthanasia lobby began the push to expand euthanasia to the "completed life" in 2010 when they ran a signature campaign promoting what they then called, the "last will pill."

The 2018 Netherlands euthanasia data indicates that euthanasia based on a "completed life" is already happening. In 2018, 205 people died by euthanasia, who had multiple problems derived from the aging process. This was a new category based on the "completed life."

Once killing becomes an acceptable solution to social problems, the only remaining question is what problem will killing become the solution for?

Three Netherlands euthanasia deaths are being investigated.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article, on June 23, by Senay Boztas, for the Guardian outlines several euthanasia deaths that are being investigated or prosecuted in the Netherlands.

EPC supporters will remember the case of the euthanasia death of a woman with dementia, in 2016, who resisted the lethal injection. Boztas explains:

...in August, a Dutch doctor will be the first prosecuted for failings, in a 2016 case, in which sedatives were put in a dementia patient’s coffee and her family asked to hold her down when she struggled against the euthanasia injection.

• Dutch doctor who euthanized woman without consent is being prosecuted (Link).

According to Boztas two other cases were investigated in 2017:

The two other cases, from 2017, involve a woman in her 60s with Alzheimer’s whom an independent consultant did not judge to be suffering badly enough, and another in her 80s with osteoarthritis and other problems who refused other treatment.

Boztas reports about another case in 2018. Boztas reported:

... prosecutors are investigating a doctor for failing to treat the case of a woman with “due diligence” last year. According to the report, a woman in her 70s with depression had been operated on for abdominal problems when surgeons found evidence of lung cancer. She approached her doctor, saying she was experiencing unbearable psychological suffering and wanted euthanasia. Her doctor’s colleague took on the case, but, the review committee said, failed to obtain a second opinion from an independent psychiatrist, as is required.

Recently Wesley Smith wrote about nine couples that were euthanized together.

EPC explained that the 2018 Netherlands euthanasia statistics that the number of reported euthanasia deaths was down by 7%, likely related to the investigations by the Netherlands Prosecutor. We stated our concern that a new euthanasia category indicates that 205 people died by euthanasia based on multiple problems derived from the aging process. We fear that these deaths are based on "completed life."

The Netherlands euthanasia controversy continues. In January 2018, we learned that Berna van Baarsen, who had been a euthanasia assessor for 10 years, resigned over cases of euthanasia for dementia. In the same month,  Aurelia Brouwers (29) died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. even though she was physically healthy.

The euthanasia train left the station a long time ago in the Netherlands. Sadly, Canada is quickly riding the same euthanasia track and experiencing the same concerns.

Reject euthanasia. A culture that cares does not kill.

2018 Netherlands euthanasia deaths are lower. We are concerned about euthanasia for "completed life."

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Dutch media reported that, the 2018 euthanasia report indicates that there were 6126 reported euthanasia deaths in 2018 down from 6585 reported euthanasia deaths in 2017. 

Annemarie de jong, writing for the Nordhollands Dagblad, quoted Jacob Kohnstamm, the Chairman of the Regional Review Committee on Euthanasia, that the number of euthanasia deaths was "a fluctuation in the figures".

The article by de jong also suggests that there will be an increase in euthanasia deaths in 2019. She reported that the Nivel research institute stated:

It is striking that the number of euthanasia reports increased by 9 percent in the first quarter of 2019 compared to the same period last year

According to research 20% - 23% of the euthanasia deaths are not reported in the Netherlands. It is possible that some of the controversial euthanasia cases were simply not reported.

I am convinced that the lower number of reported euthanasia deaths is primarily related to the euthanasia cases that are being prosecuted in the Netherlands and Belgium. Doctors simply don't want to be brought before a tribunal or court to justify why they lethally injected a patient.

The number of euthanasia deaths for dementia and psychiatric problems also declined in 2018 while a new category of death causes me concern. The Dutchnews.nl reported:

Of the cases reported to the committee last year, 146 concerned people with dementia and 67 people had severe psychiatric problems. In 205 cases, patients had multiple problems derived from the ageing process.

In 2017, 169 people died by euthanasia for dementia (3 were advanced dementia) and 83 people died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

The 205 people who had multiple problems derived from the aging process were part of a new category: "the completed life."

• She was euthanized without consent in the Netherlands.

There were several controversial Netherlands euthanasia stories in 2018.

In August 2017, a 5 year study sponsored by the Netherlands government showed significant increases in assisted deaths and continued abuse of the law.

In January we learned that Berna van Baarsen, who had been a euthanasia assessor for 10 years, resigned over cases of euthanasia for dementia.

In January, Aurelia Brouwers (29) died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. She was physically healthy.

In March we learned that the public prosecutor was investigating several controversial euthanasia deaths. The public prosecutor was also investigating a euthanasia group in the Netherlands after the death of a 19-year-old woman.

In July a Dutch doctor was reprimanded in the euthanasia death of a woman with dementia who had resisted.

In November, the Dutch doctor who euthanized a woman with dementia who had resisted, was prosecuted.

The euthanasia train left the station a long time ago in the Netherlands. Sadly, Canada is quickly riding the same euthanasia track and experiencing the same concerns.

Euthanasia was sold to the public as an "option" for people who are nearing death and suffering. It was then promoted for people who are not nearing death and fear possible future suffering. It was then extended to children and people with dementia. Finally it has extended to anyone who claims to have a "completed life."

Reject euthanasia. A culture that cares and not kills is the only way to go.

Assisted suicide and the false concept of autonomy.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor Kevin Yuill

The Economist, a Magazine that promotes a pro-euthanasia / assisted suicide position recently published a series of articles supporting and opposing assisted dying. 

On August 22, 2018, The Economist published an article by Kevin Yuill, author of the book: Assisted Suicide - The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalization.

In this article, Yuill focuses on the false concept of autonomy, with respect to assisted suicide. He states:

The most serious case made by advocates for assisted suicide is autonomy. Yet what stands out for this most recent toleration of at least some suicides is the lack of autonomy; to be legitimate, it seems, suicide must be sanctioned by that new priesthood, medical authority.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia (where the doctor accomplishes the act) has risen rapidly since it was legalised in 2002. Last year 6,306 cases of euthanasia were reported to the Regionale Toetsingscommissies Euthansie, compared with 2,910 in 2010. With assisted suicides, where the patient must do it themselves, the rise is much slower: 250 reported in 2017, compared to 242 in 2014 and 182 in 2010.

As Henk Blanken, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease recently complained in the Guardian, “when push comes to shove, the patient is not the one who decides on their euthanasia. It is the doctor who decides, and no one else.” Death has become one more of life’s events that we no longer seem to be able to do ourselves.

We are not simply our bodies. Assisted suicide defines our lives in overly physical terms. ... With assisted suicide, we ask that doctors, experts only in our somatic existence, play God. When someone else is involved in our death, it is not just our wishes that are involved.

Yuill then explains the pressure exerted to extend assisted dying laws, once assisted suicide is legal. He states:

Often nations with legalised euthanasia and/or assisted suicide have quickly extended the criteria beyond the original remit of deaths inflicted by terminal illness. In Canada, where medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalised in 2016, what was a moral compass surely twists in the wind. One of at least 1,300 who was granted it in the first year was a 77-year-old woman suffering from non-terminal osteoarthritis. After physicians refused, a judge ruled that she must be granted her request as she was “almost 80” with “no quality of life”. Ontario has abolished freedom of conscience by requiring doctors to participate in killing patients, whatever their beliefs. The current restrictions in the law are being challenged on many fronts by those who argue that their suffering matches that of those who are granted MAiD. Who can disagree? Having already allowed euthanasia for, among other things, tinnitus and vision loss, the Dutch House of Representatives held a plenary session on the widely supported citizen’s initiative, “Completed life”, that demands the right for all Dutch people over 70 who feel tired of life to have assisted deaths.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, over the issue of “psychiatric” euthanasia, there finally appears to be some recognition that a mistake has been made somewhere along the line. In Belgium in 2014-15, 124 people were euthanised because of a “mental and behavioural disorder”.

Yuill reminds the readers that the British parliament defeated an assisted dying bill in 2015. He states:

A wise government will, like the British parliament in 2015, refuse to make assisted dying legal.

Giving doctors the right in law to kill their patients, results in an ever expanding definition of who should die.

Fatal Flaws Film: Legalizing Assisted Death (Early preview).

By Kevin Dunn, Director - Fatal Flaws Film

Today we launch the fundraising campaign for our new film FATAL FLAWS. Over the past two years, my crew and I have logged over 50,000 kms in the air and on the road to ask one of the most fundamental philosophical questions of our time:

Should we be giving doctors – or anyone – the right and law to end the life of another human – and how do these laws affect society over time?

Kevin Dunn in the Netherlands

As a producer/director with over 30 years experience, my work has been seen on broadcasters like the Discovery Channel, History UK, ARTE France and Germany, SBS Australia, CTV, CBC and Global TV in Canada. Over the years I’ve produced a number of independent “passion” projects, but none to the size and scope of Fatal Flaws. I’m about to tell you why.

Just over a year ago, my country (Canada) passed laws that allow for an assisted death under certain criteria. Within months these laws have been challenged, arguing that they were too restrictive. I had heard about the ever expanding euthanasia laws in Belgium and The Netherlands which now include euthanasia for children, for people with psychiatric problems – and just as disturbing – a report that over 1000 people in Belgium were euthanized without consent in 2013. And it was all on public record. So why weren’t we hearing about these things in the media on this side of the pond? Shouldn’t these facts be raising alarm bells?

Kevin at Dutch euthanasia clinic

Some 20 years after these laws were introduced, even some of the most staunch supporters of assisted dying are questioning where these laws are taking us. The grandfather of euthanasia in the Netherlands, Dr. Boudewijn Chabot speaks of a ‘worrisome culture shift’ and that euthanasia is ‘getting out of hand’ – especially as it relates to patients with psychiatric issues.

I asked a prominent author and journalist in The Netherlands if there’s anyone telling the other side of the story. He paused and said, “no one”. I decided then and there that this film had to be made.

In what was the most surreal 7 days of my life, my crew and I traveled to The Netherlands for their annual “Euthanasia Week.” Yes there is such a thing. As part of the week long events, they had a conference for seniors and – believe it or not – a youth conference to discuss euthanasia related issues. Much of the discussion was around a government bill called “The Completed Life” where otherwise healthy people who are ‘tired of life’ could ask for a lethal prescription. To me it all sounded like a futuristic novel. Except it’s happening now and in real time.

Fatal Flaws filming in Washington

We’ve all heard the tragic and much publicized stories of people who have asked for an assisted death here in North America. Heartbreaking cases. Some of these cases have made their way to the top courts of the land to overturn longstanding criminal laws on what used to be classified as homicide. Since 1998, five countries and six US states have laws making an assisted death legal under certain criteria. Victoria, Australia is the most recent jurisdiction to adopt such a law – one that passed by two votes. Almost every country in the world is discussing some form of legalization and America is “at a tipping point”.

I’ve traveled around the globe learning about the rationale behind these laws from people on both sides of the issue. I’m told that it’s about personal autonomy and choice, however if you ask others I’ve interviewed in the film, they will tell you that ‘choice’ is an illusion and that these laws are an invitation to abuse. People have come forth with stories of elder abuse, coercion by family members, by doctors and nurses. Some of these stories have led to death by lethal injection or assisted suicide. I’ve interviewed people with a disability whose ‘quality of life’ was deemed unworthy of living by doctors who have a severely warped sense of compassion. These stories trouble me deeply.

Time for a disclaimer. This film is not out to demonize doctors, advocates – or anyone for that matter. In fact, most doctors want nothing to do with assisted death. However a small minority do, and the number is growing. Rather, this film is about the growing adoption of a new cultural philosophy, one that has the potential to wreak havoc on society’s vulnerable. And let’s face it, we are all vulnerable.

The film will endeavour to be fair to both sides. However, I will make no apology for showing the ugly reality of the ramifications of these laws. While some feel these laws are progressive, others bear witness to the irreversible emotional scars on individual lives and families. It’s high time the world heard both sides of the story.

PLEASE MAKE THIS FILM A REALITY

Between The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and my own contributions through DunnMedia & Entertainment, we’ve been able to take the film this far. We have a few more shoots in the USA and then it’s on to writing, editing, paying for music and footage rights and of course distribution around the world. 

We need just under $100,000 to complete the film. 

Please consider making a donation by clicking HERE!

Euthanasia lobby confirms elder abuse risk – but doesn’t seem to care

This article was published by Mercatornet on September 5, 2017

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - The director of HOPE Australia

The Netherlands legalised both euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002. The data shows an overwhelming preference for euthanasia. In 2015, there were 6672 euthanasia deaths and only 150 assisted suicide deaths; the total comprising at least 4.5% of all deaths.

In recent years the discussion about ‘life ending actions’ has turned to assisted suicide for ‘completed life’; where a person over a certain age may declare that they wish to end their lives even though they may have no serious medical issues.

Debate has raged back and forth on this new development for some years. An expert committee recommended that changes to the law not proceed, but there remains support from within government and some of the minor parties.

Reports in 2016 suggested that the government had drafted legislation. Health Minister, Edith Schippers, has said that "because the wish for a self-chosen end of life primarily occurs in the elderly, the new system will be limited to them”. The lower age limit is rather arbitrary with debate ranging from 60 to 70 years of age.

Legislation is expected to be introduced in late 2017. It is expected to take the form of a new law rather than an amendment. This seems to be because the existing provisions require medical opinion and support whereas this new form of assisted suicide may have more in common with the mail or online order system made notorious by the Australian activist Dr Philip Nitschke and his organisation, Exit International.

But this is not the first time that such a move has been put forward. As with all of these debates, there’s a long lead-in time while the discussion of the agenda looks to forge a beachhead of public opinion.

In 1991, Dutch Supreme Court Judge, Huib Drion, argued for “The self-chosen end for old people,” over the age of 75. He suggested a two-stage process where a person would self-administer a substance that would have no immediate effect that could be followed up later by the second stage substance that would react with the first and bring about death by suicide. The idea became known as “the Drion Pill” though no such pill was ever developed.

The publication of his paper in a newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, in 1991, sparked a significant controversy with letters of support for many weeks and Drion receiving a great deal of public attention.

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies (WFRTDS) also picked up on the idea as did its Dutch counterpart the Dutch Right to Die society (NVVE) and the former Dutch health minister Els Borst who was instrumental in the introduction of the 2002 euthanasia law.

In 2003, the WFRTDS adopted a name change to their policy support for Drion’s idea, calling it, instead, “The Last Will Pill” and noting that the resonance of the use of Drion’s name limited the association of the idea to the elderly. WFRTDS sees its application more broadly than that.

Both Drion and the WFRTDS are clear in the distinction between the practice of euthanasia in Holland and this new proposal.

The rhetoric is eerily similar to Nitschke and Exit: current euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are medical models that only partially give voice to autonomy. As NVVE chief executive officer Rob Jonquière, pointed out: 

“People want the right to choose to end their life independent of doctors or illness.”

This independence from any medical model has implications. As observed already, there are similarities in the proposals to the modus operandi of Exit and Philip Nitschke.

Another Dutch right-to-die club, The Co-operative Last Will, are also pushing this barrow. They seem willing to sail close to the edges of the law in advocacy and information in a similar way to Exit. They are promoting “a new drug” but refuse to identify it.

“The stuff is legally available and deadly in pure form. It has already been used by people who wanted to commit self-exploitation. There have also been several murders committed by the means.”

This is dangerous talk. As we have seen with the Nitschke methods, people who are not otherwise ill and people who suffered depressive illnesses have been caught up in the hype with devastating personal and family consequences. The reference to murders is chilling: clearly people have been tricked into consuming the drug.

Again, like Nitschke (who once said: “There will be some casualties…”), The Co-operative Last Will organisation is frank about the possible collateral damage:

“The Cooperative Last Will and its members (3,500 people) point out the existence and functioning of the new drug. The club realizes that it involves the risks. An extreme consequence could be that children give the means to their old and wealthy parents because they want to claim their inheritance.

"That kind of criticism is to be expected. But the sale of rope is also not forbidden, and so people rob themselves of life, "says a spokeswoman.” (Emphasis added)

A glib retort and hardly apposite. Robbing oneself of life is suicide – elder abuse to death is murder. But who would ever know.

But collateral damage it will be. Far from stopping Dutch “right-to-die” types in their tracks, such an acknowledgement seems more about deflecting criticism than it is about protecting Dutch citizens from abuse.

One wonders if the Zeitgeist had not been infected this past 20 years and more with the Dutch strain of the euthanasia virus if there might have been more pause for thought. Given that Drion’s infamous idea predates Dutch euthanasia by a full decade; perhaps not!

Paul Russell is director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide, which is based in Australia.

Double euthanasia in the Netherlands

This article was published by Wesley Smith on August 14, 2017

R

Wesley Smith

emember when society considered it a tragedy when old people killed themselves? 

Now, apparently, it is celebrated as a splendid “death with dignity” choice. From the Telegraph story: 

An elderly couple died holding hands surrounded by loved ones in a rare double euthanasia. 

Nic and Trees Elderhorst, both 91, died in their hometown of Didam, in the Netherlands, after 65 years of marriage. The couple both suffered from deteriorating physical health over the past five years, with Mr Elderhorst left with reduced mobility after a stroke in 2012. 

Walking had also become increasingly difficult for his wife, who had also suffered from memory loss. 

“It soon became clear that it could not wait much longer,” the couple’s daughter told The Gelderlander [translated]. “The geriatrician determined that our mother was still mentally competent. However, if our father were to die, she could become completely disoriented, ending up in a nursing home. 

“Something which she desperately did not want. Dying together was their deepest wish.”

There you go again, Wesley “slippery sloping away!” 

No. Facts on the ground. Joint euthanasia or assisted suicides of elderly couples have also taken place in Switzerland and Belgium. 

This is the thing: Once a society accepts killing as an acceptable answer to current and feared future suffering, then what constitutes sufficient difficulty to qualify to be made dead becomes very elastic. 

Et voila, before you know it, the children of elderly parents attend and celebrate their joint euthanasia killings–instead of urging them to remain alive and assuring them that they will be loved and cared for, come what may. 

Euthanasia corrupts everything it touches, including the perceptions of children’s obligations to aging parents and society’s duties toward their elderly members. 

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands, the doctor will kill you now.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 20, the Wall Street Journal published an article by Kees van der Straaij, who is a member of the Netherlands parliament. The following is the Wall Street Journal article - In the Netherlands, the doctor will kill you now. 

Kees van der Straaij MP (Netherlands).

In 2002 the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for those suffering deadly diseases or in the last stages of life. Not long after the legislation was enacted, eligibility was expanded to include those experiencing psychological suffering or dementia. Today pressure is mounting for the Dutch government to legalize a “euthanasia pill” for those who are not ill, but simply consider their lives to be “full.” 

Proponents of assisted suicide continue to claim that safeguards already built into Dutch law are sufficient to reduce the risk of abuse. They point out that medical professionals are required to assess whether a person’s suffering is indeed unbearable and hopeless. 

These safeguards do exist. In practice, however, they are hard to enforce. A poignant illustration was recently aired on Dutch television. An older woman stricken with semantic dementia had lost her ability to use words to convey meaning. “Upsy-daisy, let’s go,” she said. Both her husband and her physician at the end-of-life clinic interpreted her words to mean, “I want to die.” A review committee judged her euthanasia was in accordance both with the law and her earlier written instructions, an outcome very few would have imagined possible as recently as 10 years ago.  

Such episodes have many Dutch people worried about the erosion of protections for the socially vulnerable and medically fragile. A broad and heated public debate recently flared about whether doctors may administer fatal drugs to those with severe dementia based on a previously signed “advance directive.” In several controversial cases, assisted suicide was not directly discussed with patients who were incapable of reaffirming earlier written death wishes. In one case, a doctor slipped a dementia patient a sleeping pill in some apple sauce so that he could be easily taken home and given a deadly injection. 

Hundreds of Dutch physicians signed a declaration outlining their moral objection to these increasingly common practices. Nonetheless, the Dutch government stands by its claim that the law permits doctors to end such patients’ lives. Meanwhile, the Dutch Right to Die Society, a national euthanasia lobby, keeps pressing to take further steps, arguing that individuals should have the option to “step out of life.” 

But is this argument really convincing? Those seeking death because their lives are “full” are often haunted by loneliness and despair. Some elderly people fear bothering their children with their social and medical needs. They don’t want to be perceived as burdensome. 

Legalizing the euthanasia pill could put even more pressure on the vulnerable, disabled and elderly. More than 60% of geriatric-care specialists already say they have felt pressure from patients’ family members to euthanize elderly relatives. Will the day come when society considers it entirely normal—even “natural”—for people who grow old or become sick simply to pop the pill and disappear? If so, those who desire to continue living in spite of society’s expectations will have some serious explaining to do. 

All of this clearly shows the slippery slope of the euthanasia path. Contrary to the emphatic advice of a special advisory committee chaired by a prominent member of a liberal-democratic party, the outgoing Dutch government wishes to expand and extend the euthanasia law to those who consider their lives to be full. The pressing question is where the slope ends and the abyss begins. Will those with intellectual disabilities or physical defects also be “empowered” to step out of life? Will those battling thoughts of suicide be encouraged to opt for a “dignified death” in place of excellent psychiatric care? 

The government’s most fundamental task is to protect its citizens. The Dutch government, to its credit, often speaks out when fundamental human rights are under threat around the world. Now that the fundamental right to life is under threat in the Netherlands, it’s time for others to speak out about the Dutch culture of euthanasia.

Links to other articles concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands.

• Netherlands study: 431 people were killed without explicit consent in the Netherlands in 2015. 
• Euthanasia pioneer provides new information concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands. 
• Netherlands 2016 euthanasia report. Euthanasia increases by another 10%.

Euthanasia: when safeguards become barriers to access.

This article was published by Mercatornet on July 4, 2017

B

Aubert Martin

y Aubert Martin, Executive Director of Vivre dans la Dignité (Living with Dignity) Quebec

A month after the publication of a letter by the secretary of the College of Physicians of Quebec – in which he expressed his concern about a growing “pressure, demanding a form of death à la carte” and in which he denounced those who interpret refusals of euthanasia as a form of exclusion – lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard is challenging before the courts the cases of two people living with disabilities who were refused the assistance of a physician to kill themselves.

The plaintiffs requested the removal of the “reasonably foreseeable death” clause of the federal law as well as the “end of life” requirement in the Quebec law.

More voices were added to the chorus of “rebels” decrying the cruelty of all criteria that dare make reference to the proximity of death.

Yet not so long ago, the elected Members of the National Assembly in Quebec (MNAs) were congratulating themselves on the wisdom of their law that made reference to… the end of life. This is another reversal of logic in the long list of changes of rhetoric we have already witnessed.

Indeed, at the time of the adoption of the Quebec bill, words like “safeguard” and “strict conditions” peppered the speech of those seeking to calm the fears of people wary of allowing homicide under certain circumstances.

Today, potential extensions of the law are justified by referring to “consensus” and “the will of the people,” while the “safeguards” have turned into “barriers to access”.

Meanwhile, the same promoters of euthanasia who claimed that it was only a matter of “exceptional requests for exceptional cases” have updated their rhetoric to justify the explosion of euthanasia requests: it has become “a response to a need.”

Yet, before the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Quebec and in Canada, warnings of the slippery slope were met with mockery and contempt from those who embraced medical suicide with open arms.

At best, this cautious warning, based on the experience of countries that legalized euthanasia before us, was treated as a scarecrow brandished by alarmists. “The slippery slope doesn’t exist!” responded those anti-skeptics and other merchants of death.

Today, slightly more than a year after the Quebec bill 52 that legalized euthanasia came into force, we see the first obvious signs of the slippery slope: we have gone from exception to promotion. Already the “end of life” criterion is presented as discrimination which prevents people with disabilities from committing suicide, implying that their living conditions justify their desire to die.

Secondly, the argument that euthanasia is about “capable and consenting people” is giving way to the idea of killing an incapable person (with Alzheimer’s or dementia) regardless of the person’s consent at the time of death.

Finally, according to a Canadian study published in May, the proverbial patient writhing in pain on his deathbed has morphed into a person in existential crisis over his loss of autonomy (read: disability).

So we won’t be surprised if tomorrow we are presented with other ludicrous propositions, such as the one currently gaining popularity in the Netherlands: opening “medical aid in dying” to elderly people who feel they have accomplished their lives.

A society does not accept overnight the idea that the state should endorse the suicide of an elderly and healthy person simply because she is tired of living. It must first live through the deep malaise that accompanies every new expansion of euthanasia access that is sold to us as progress.

In fact, when we think about it, the only thing that is “reasonably foreseeable” is the extension of medically assisted suicide to more and more groups of people. If death is sold as a solution to suffering, and if suicide is viewed favourably when a doctor is involved, the real question is not why some are opposed to it, but rather “why say yes to one and no to others?”

Aubert Martin is the Executive Director of Vivre dans la Dignité (Living with Dignity), a Quebec-based organisation.

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.

Netherlands 2016 euthanasia deaths increase by another 10%

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Dutch News reported that the number of reported assisted deaths increased by 10% in 2016 to 6091 reported assisted deaths, representing 4% of all deaths in the Netherlands up from 5561 reported assisted deaths in 2015. There were 5875 euthanasia deaths and 216 assisted suicide deaths.

Since 2006 there has been a 317% increase in assisted deaths in the Netherlands.

There were increases in euthanasia deaths based on dementia or psychiatric reasons. There were 141 people who died by euthanasia based on dementia in 2016, up from 109 in 2015. There were 60 people who died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in 2016, up from 56 in 2015. There were also 244 people who died by euthanasia based on "advanced age."

In 2016, there were 10 cases referred by a Regional Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission for investigation.

Every five years the Netherlands conducts a major study on euthanasia. The 2010 study that was published in the Lancet (July 2012) indicated that 23% of all assisted deaths were unreported in the Netherlands. If this trend continued, that may have been 1400 unreported assisted deaths in 2016.

Netherlands euthanasia news stories in 2016:

In January 2016, the Netherlands decided to extend euthanasia to people with severe dementia. 

A study published on Feb 10, 2016 in the Journal of Psychiatry concerning euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands uncovered significant concerns. According to researcher Scott Kim:

in one EAS case, a woman who died by euthanasia was in her 70s without health problems had decided, with her husband, that they would not live without each other. After her husband died, she lived a life described as a "living hell" that was "meaningless." 

A consultant reported that this woman "did not feel depressed at all. She ate, drank and slept well. She followed the news and undertook activities."

In April a dentist admitted to assisting the suicide of his wife.

In May, the Netherlands euthanasia clinic lethally injected a woman who was sexually abused as a child.

In October, the Netherlands government stated that it planned to extend euthanasia to people who are not sick or dying but claim to have a "completed life." Recently, the Dutch Medical Association opposed changing the euthanasia law.

In November, a Dutch journalist reported that he was writing a book about his brother who died by euthanasia based on chronic alcoholism.

In January 2017, a Regional euthanasia Review Committee decided that a forced euthanasia on a woman with dementia, where the doctor sedated the woman by secretly putting the drugs in her coffee and then had the family hold her down to enable the lethal injection, did not follow the rules but found that it was done in "good faith."

The Netherlands euthanasia law continues to expand. Once the law allows one person to kill another person, then the line has been crossed and the only remaining question is - who can be killed?

Dutch doctors group rejects separate rules concerning euthanasia for "completed life."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last October we reported that the Dutch government were planning to expand their euthanasia law to include people who are not physically or psychologically suffering but who believe that their "life is complete."

The DutchNews.NL reported that the Dutch doctors association (KNMG) was not in favour of developing a section of the euthanasia law to prescribe lethal drugs for "completed life." The DutchNews.NL reported:

Last October, health minister Edith Schippers and justice minister Ard van de Steur said in a briefing to MPs that ‘elderly’ people with a consistent and well-considered wish to die – whether ill or not – should be able to take a drug to end their lives. 

The practice would not be considered euthanasia, in which the patient is said to be suffering unbearably, and in which doctors have an active role, and family members would not be allowed to administer the drug.

The KNMG stated that expanding the euthanasia law for reasons of a "completed life" would undermine the current euthanasia law. The DutchNews.NL stated:

However, separate legislation for people with ‘no medical grounds’ for the wish to die could have an undesirable social effect, by stigmatising the elderly, the KNMG said. Instead, the government should invest in measures to make sure the elderly do not feel their lives are pointless. 

The expansion of euthanasia rules are likely to become part of the current coalition government talks. D66 is the driving force behind the changes and the VVD have said they will support them. However, the Christian Democrats, who do not back change, are set to have a key role in the new government.

Once killing becomes an acceptable solution to social problems, the only remaining question is what problems will killing become a solution for?

Expanding Euthanasia in The Netherlands

This article was written by Alex van Vuuren and published in the Schreew om Leven newsletter. 

In October the Dutch government came with a new initiative for a law regarding euthanasia. This new law will expand the existing legal euthanasia practice in The Netherlands, but will be a separate law. A parliamentary committee earlier this year however had clearly stated that an expansion of the existing Euthanasia Act was not desirable.

The new term being used for the expansion of euthanasia is “completed life”. This term is used for persons who are healthy but have a desire for the ending of their life. This would only count for some elderly persons, who see the end of life approaching and prefer not to become dependent on the help of others, but an age limit is not mentioned in the proposal.

The new initiative has the support of the majority in parliament. The government stated its purpose to give time for discussion with medical professionals and will probably come with a law proposal after the elections on March 15, 2017. Outside of the government, the liberal party D’66 is the most supportive of expansion of euthanasia. On Sunday, December 16, D’66 announced its own law proposal for “completed life”. They have clearly done this to speed up the process and have a law in place before the elections. One difference with the government proposal is that there is a age limit of 75 years and older.

Among the many problems with these new proposals is the term “completed life”. It is even more cleverly designed than “euthanasia – good death”, because it combines a positive word (completed) with the word “life”, while meaning death. Just this year the result of scientific research on “completed life” was presented. Els van Wijngaarden did in-depth interviews with 25 elderly persons with a death wish who felt that their life was completed. Many do not feel the positive experience of a fully lived life, but are full of remorse or sorrow, or are afraid of becoming dependent. Their self-chosen ending of life can be seen as an escape.

Another fundamental problem is the idea of autonomy. This has been the core of the critique of the parliamentary committee of experts. Autonomy is a dangerous foundation for a law. In all the debates, the autonomous decision of a rational person is put forward as an argument for the expansion of euthanasia. However, what can be more irrational than making an end to life and thereby an end to the possibility of ever making another autonomous decision? It is clear, that life and autonomy go along together.

Mark Rutte, the prime minister is responsible for the new euthanasia initiative