The ways that Dutch doctors kill

Wesley Smith

The following article was written by Wesley Smith and published on his blog on December 10, 2013; under the title: Let me count the ways Dutch doctors kill.

By Wesley Smith

How do Dutch doctors kill? Let me count the ways: Dutch euthanasia statistics are bogus and always were.

First, they have a very narrow definition of euthanasia and assisted suicide. For example, when a doctor lethally injects someone who didn’t ask to be killed–known as termination without request or consent–it isn’t technically considered euthanasia.

Second, Dutch doctors intentionally overdose patient with pain medicine to cause death–also not considered euthanasia. A new study finds that about 10% of Dutch doctors have killed by intentionally overdosing. 

From the DutchNews.nl story:

One in 10 Dutch family doctors has given dying patients a too-high dose of morphine or other painkiller in order to speed up their death, the Volkskrant reports on Tuesday. 

The figures come from a survey of 866 family doctors for NCRV television programme Altijd Wat, the Volkskrant said. 

‘If a terminally-ill patient is suffering badly, despite being given the correct medicine, then I give someone as much as I think necessary. Protocols are irrelevant on such occasions,’ one anonymous doctor is quoted as saying.

Notice, consent had nothing to do with it.

Third, Dutch doctors often don’t report their euthanasia deaths even though required by law.

Fourth, doctors increasingly used terminal sedation instead of lethal injection. That is, they put a patient into a coma and withhold food and water. For them, that has the benefit of their not having to be present at the death.

A bit ago, I computed the numbers of patient deaths in the Netherlands that involved killing by doctors at a staggering 13%.

Bottom line: Euthanasia empowers doctors to kill who they think need killing. There is no control or protection other than the consciences of death doctors.

Jeanette Hall: I say no to assisted suicide.

My name is Jeanette Hall and I live in the state of Oregon, USA, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was enacted via a ballot initiative that I voted for.

Jeanette Hall

The reason I had been in favor of assisted suicide when our law went into effect was that I had no previous health issues, loved ones and friends were there to encourage me, and I used my favorite aunt as my reason why assisted suicide should be legal. My Aunt had been a strong woman, a lawyer, and I watched her die by cancer. My thought then was no one will do that to me and I will end my life before it comes to that. That was my reasoning, at the time, when our law went into effect.

Then, on July 17, 2000, I was rushed by ambulance to the emergency room of Oregon Health & Science University Hospital in Portland, Oregon, with excessive blood loss. I had been seeing a doctor (OHSU colon doctor) and my appointment to see him was at the exact time I was admitted to the ER. The doctors and nurses were trying to stabilize me when the my doctor entered the room and prepared to tell me that the biopsy came back (squamous cell carcinoma) and that I had colon cancer. I was soon to learn that it was inoperable and the only way to survive this type of cancer was with chemotherapy and radiation and without it, I was given six months to a year to live.

Life as I knew it seemed to end that week for me. I had fear of losing my job, not being able to care for my mother with dementia, hospital bills, and fearing I would end up just like my aunt. My hope turned into despair, and I prepared to die before the suffering got worse, since I was determined not to have chemo or radiation.

But, then entered Dr. Kenneth Stevens (OHSU radiation doctor). I thank all the Dr. Stevens of the world, who are there for you to give you hope when yours is gone. He encouraged me to think of living instead of dying and brought me back to reality with the question, "Don't you want to see your son get married?" He did not know that at that given time, I thought I would only become a burden to my son and my thought was that he would be o.k. without me.

I am so grateful that Dr. Stevens worked with me and helped me change my mind to fight. If he believed in physician-assisted suicide, I would not be here 13 years later to thank him, I would be dead and I would not have been able to hold my mother's hand at the end.

Everyone needs a Dr. Stevens along the way. He was there again for me two years ago in ER at OHSU when I suffered some seizures and could not talk or swallow. It's great to be alive to have one more day and be able to encourage others to not give up when there seems to be no hope when given a terminal illness.

I say "NO" to assisted suicide. Thank you.

Jeanette Hall
King City Oregon

Lia Mills: Kill the pain, not the patient.

By Lia Mills

Lia Mills

I first heard the slogan “Death with Dignity” when I was 13. Even in my youth, the phrase didn’t sit well with me. And, as I researched it, I came to a solid conclusion: euthanasia was wrong.

Many said I was brainwashed and naïve and that my views would develop and mature as I grew older. Well, I’m not exactly old, but four years later, I can say that, although I have developed and matured, my conclusion has not changed.

The slogan “Death with Dignity” is a lovely illusion. The concept behind its birth appears flawlessly kind. It holds that controversial yet alluring “logic” that dances around the idea of ethics and goes straight for the jugular of emotion. But it is for this reason that we should be warned. Euthanasia advocates are practiced in the ways of the heart. They know how to tug on heartstrings, how to pull out raw emotion, and how to toy with human instincts. They need raw emotion because their arguments hold little appeal to the mind.

Consider, on the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia. These look at past experience with euthanasia, which has proven that there can never be enough safeguards put in place to ensure that no one dies an unwilling victim under the guise of “voluntary” euthanasia. They also point out that elder abuse is all too real an issue to ignore. They point out that those who suffer from mental illness, like clinical depression, could easily slip through the restraints surrounding euthanasia and be gone before anyone can give them the help they really needed. They point out that the chance of unwanted infants being enveloped under euthanasia laws is not only a possibility but is a current reality in some countries, throwing open the question of “who will be next?” They point to the fact that, where euthanasia is legalized, advances in palliative care stagnate. All these arguments are based on hard facts, not manipulative emotional pleas.

And, yet, those who oppose euthanasia do also appeal to the heart. They appeal to the real need that lies within each person to be told that their life matters, no matter what the current state, and that there is hope, no matter how dark the current situation. It is a position that actively pursues palliative care instead of merely offering lethal doses and body bags.

Euthanasia supporters claim that anti-euthanasia activists are monsters. They attempt to paint pictures for the masses of evil, sadistic people who enjoy the torture of the sick and elderly. In reality, we seek to protect and uphold the value of human life and we believe that “Death with Dignity” means that we embrace the idea that it is possible to kill the pain and not the patient.

This article was originally published on December 5, 2013 by LifeSiteNews.

Euthanasia in Belgium: Safeguards and controls do not work.

MONTREAL, Dec. 8, 2013 PRNewswire

Link to the original media release.

Etienne Montero

At a press conference, Prof. Dr. Etienne Montero, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Namur, Belgium, gave an overview of 11 years of euthanasia in Belgium. The proponents of euthanasia in Belgium  recognize that most requests for euthanasia are not rooted in physical pain, which can be controlled, but in psychological suffering. Examples include loss of meaning, loneliness, weariness of life, and need to master one's death. In situations of suffering, a euthanasia request is understandable, but courts cannot give the right to euthanasia without endangering the lives and security of its citizens. All citizens are at risk of excesses and abuse.

Link to an interview with Etienne Montero.

The Belgian experience of euthanasia teaches us that it is an illusion to believe that people can have the right to euthanasia as a well-defined and well-controlled practice.

Once euthanasia is permitted, it becomes very difficult to maintain a strict interpretation of legal requirements. Quickly, restrictions fall away, one after the other, and boundaries become wider and larger. Such an expansion is inevitable due to the intrinsic dynamics of law. Indeed, law is part of a legal system that has its own dynamics, driven by higher principles such as equality and non-discrimination. First, euthanasia, initially reserved for adults, will open to minors. Second, the law initially requires a serious and incurable disease with physical or mental suffering. Applying these same principles, how can a person be denied euthanasia with only psychological suffering, without a serious and incurable disease?

The Belgian experience illustrates the difficulty of adhering to original statements and intentions of the legislator and of ensuring compliance to the original strict legal requirements. It was originally stated that psychiatric, demented or depressed patients would not be targeted by the Belgian law. However, the Belgian Control Commission (BCC) approves euthanasia in such cases today.

Conditions of severe and incurable disease and suffering are also interpreted very loosely. The BCC approves euthanasia at the request of people who suffer from various diseases related to old age, none of which, taken alone, is severe (arthritis or decreasing sight and hearing). It also recognizes the possibility of future anticipated suffering as a condition for euthanasia.

Moreover, how can anyone make sure that the patient is given free and informed consent, without external pressure? How can anyone ensure that the prognostic information (predicting chances of survival) and therapeutic options are correct as well as sufficiently explained and given in an empathetic manner? How reliable is the verification process a posteriori (after the fact) based on a document completed and submitted by the same doctor who euthanized the person (self-reporting)?

Today, the emphasis is on patient autonomy. However, there is a real danger that vulnerable people, faced with declining health, will feel pressured and compelled to be euthanized so as not to be a burden to family or society. There is also a risk that people will be euthanized due to incompetence (i.e. inadequate pain control). Finally, society may be more willing to offer euthanasia as a solution to suffering than to alleviate the suffering.

If Quebec decides to partially open the door to euthanasia, Dr Montero warned that the door will automatically open wider and wider regardless of initial intentions. This is not pure conjecture, but reality based on the Belgian experience.

SOURCE Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice

Links to similar articles:
Belgian professor warns Quebec about euthanasia risk.
Quebec euthanasia bill 52 is very dangerous.
Palliative care leaders oppose Quebec euthanasia bill.

Belgium professor warns Quebec about euthanasia risks

CTV news reported on the presentation by a Belgian law professor who explained how the Belgian euthanasia law is abused. 

Etienne Montero

Professor Etienne Montero, who is the dean of the faculty of law at the University of Namur in Belgium spoke at an event in Montreal organized by the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice in Quebec.

Bill 52, the bill that would decriminalize euthanasia in Quebec is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.

The CTV news report states:

Eleven years after Belgium passed its euthanasia laws, there remain many risks and abuses, the dean of the faculty of law at a Belgian university told a Montreal audience Sunday. 

Professor Etienne Montero said most requests in Belgium are not rooted in physical pain which can be controlled, but in psychological suffering.  

Originally, Belgian law stated that psychiatric or depressed patients would not be targeted, but the Belgian Control Commission approves euthanasia in such cases today.

The article then states that the book - Rendez-vous with Death that is written by Montero shows that euthanasia safeguards don't work, and that it's very difficult to set legal boundaries. The article stated:

“Now presently in Belgium they're going to pass a law to euthanize children. They are already euthanizing people who are depressed or tired of life because they have taken the interpretations of saying physical and/or psychological suffering - you don't have to have both, if you have one, why is that not enough? If you are suffering, it's a personal experience and it would be discriminatory for someone to judge what a person is suffering. What this teaches us is that despite the government's assurances that they will set very strict criteria, that won't work,” said Dr. Paul Saba of Physicians for Social Justice. 

Saba said that just last week, Quebec's own Commission of Human Rights went on the record with a legal opinion that not allowing euthanasia of children 14 years old and up is discriminatory, an early example he says of a dangerous, slippery slope.

CTV concluded their news story by stating:

Montero’s talk comes after a bill to give residents in Quebec the right to request “medical aid to die” was introduced in the province’s National Assembly in June.

Links to similar articles:
Palliative care leaders oppose Quebec euthanasia Bill 52.
Quebec euthanasia bill will allow euthanasia tourists.
Quebec euthanasia bill is a very dangerous bill.

Caution needed on euthanasia.

Toronto Sun columnists got it right on December 5, 2013 when they published the article: Caution needed on euthanasia on Bill 52, the bill that would decriminalize euthanasia in Quebec.

The Toronto Sun columnists examined life experience that people have with death and dying and then point out that a group of physicians in Quebec oppose the euthanasia bill in Quebec. The article states:

But when doctors question the bill, it must give us pause. Even the secular among us must ask why they are opposed. 

These are palliative care doctors who deal with dying patients. They are wary of administering lethal injections that constitute active euthanasia.

Dr. Gerald van Gurp told the CBC that a patient’s stress from pain can almost always be relieved and those who request euthanasia often only do so in a state of “turmoil”.

The article then focusses on the concerns that decriminalizing euthanasia creates. The article states:

Euthanasia also offers no scope for regrets: We cannot change our decision to die once we have taken that step. ... 

The federal government will certainly review the Quebec bill but perhaps it should also put more funds into better palliative care. 

Patients who need to be kept alive through life support already have the option of being disconnected from their machines. 

One of my relatives requested to be taken off life support because his death was imminent and his condition was worsening. 

However, this is different from lethal injection, a form of active intervention. That requires a more rigorous debate. 

The Quebec bill is one step closer to being passed. Many will claim the province is going down a slippery slope. 

Perhaps the euthanasia debate needs to be replaced by a debate on how to provide better palliative care for patients faced with end-of-life decisions. 

The complex ethics surrounding euthanasia make it one of the most contentious issues in all of human affairs. 

On assisted suicide, governments ought to err on the side of caution rather than radical new policies.

Quebec bill 52 uses deceptive and vague language, ensuring that its "safeguards" are in fact an illusion. Bill 52 would give doctors the right to kill their patients by lethal injection. Bill 52 is not safe.

Links to similar articles:

Brief presented by the Physicians Alliance for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia.

Quebec euthanasia bill will allow euthanasia tourism.

Assisted dying bill would bring risk to the vulnerable.

Palliative care leaders oppose Quebec euthanasia bill 52.

Quebec euthanasia bill (Bill 52) will allow euthanasia tourism.

An article written by Graeme Hamilton and published in the national post examines the issue of how Bill 52, the Quebec euthanasia bill, will allow euthanasia tourism.

Bill 52, that would decriminalize euthanasia in Quebec, is not concerned with protecting vulnerable from being killed, the bill is a radical pro-euthanasia bill that is focused on killing as many people as possible. Bill 52 is based on the Belgium euthanasia law.

The article quotes Yves Bolduc, the former Quebec Liberal health minister as stating:

“We are certainly going to have people from other provinces who will come here, who will stay for a certain time — more than three months — precisely to have medical aid in dying,” he said during hearings this week. “We can see that other provinces are a long way from wanting to adopt this measure.”

Bolduc explains how Bill 52 allows euthanasia tourism:

To be eligible for a legal lethal injection, patients would need a Quebec medicare card, which is granted to newcomers three months after they move to Quebec.

The article then quotes Stéphanie Vallée, the Liberal MNA for Gatineau said:

many people from Ontario have country homes in her riding across the border from Ottawa. She said their secondary residences in Quebec could easily become primary residences if that was what it took to be eligible for what the bill calls medical aid in dying.

Veronique Hivon, the junior health minister in the Quebec government said:

the requirement of a Quebec medicare card is intended to guard against “medical tourism” of the sort that has emerged in European countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal.

The Federal government must legally challenge Bill 52 before the courts. Bill 52 is unconstitutional, it seeks to extend euthanasia nationally, and it is in the interest of the federal government to protect every Canadian from having death imposed on them.

Links to similar articles:

Quebec euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is a very dangerous bill.

Assisted dying law would bring risks for the vulnerable.

BC Court of Appeal upholds protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Giving My Uninformed Consent to Die.

This article was written by Paul Tobin, the President of the United Spinal Association, and titled: Giving My Uninformed Consent to Die. The article concerns the death of Tim Bowers who died on November 3, 2013 after his ventilator was withdrawn, soon after an accident.

Paul Tobin

By Paul Tobin

Yesterday, I read with horror the account of Tim Bowers, who at the age of 32 and surrounded by grieving family and friends, gave his uninformed consent to be removed from life support following a high-level spinal cord injury. Why was I horrified? Mr. Bowers and his family devalued his very existence in light of a significant, life-altering disability. Why was it uninformed? Simply because so little is known about how Mr. Bowers may have been able to survive and thrive if he was given more time.

At the lowest point in his life, surrounded by family members grieving the loss of the person he was, he was awakened from a coma, removed from ventilator support and given the opportunity to exit this world without ever knowing the person that he could become after the injury. Many people, including Mr. Bowers family, will argue that he didn’t want to live as a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. Having been a quadriplegic for the past twenty years – albeit without need for a ventilator – and as the President of an organization representing 40,000 people with spinal cord injuries and disorders, their families and caregivers, I contend that nobody, including Mr. Bowers physicians, could tell what his ultimate condition would be.

In 1993, I shared the views ascribed to Mr. Bowers by his family that he wouldn’t want to live as a quadriplegic. I held that view right up until to moment that I heard my neck break and felt my body go limp; lying face down in the surf, cognizant of what had happened, I wanted to live. I was grateful to be pulled from the surf and given the opportunity to live. Over the next few days, I remember coming in and out of consciousness. I was completely paralyzed below the shoulders (and would remain so for the next few months). My wife was pregnant; my job was gone; my house was inaccessible; my car couldn’t be modified; everything, every plan, every aspiration seemed to have slipped away. My feelings of being a burden to my family set in – as they may have with Mr. Bowers. They would be better off without me. I love them too much to do this to them. I can’t live this way. If given the opportunity at various points after my injury to relieve my family of the burden, or out of my own sense of loss or despair, I might have taken up the offer.

New Jersey Governor Christie opposes assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stated during a press conference that he is opposed to the assisted suicide bill that is being debated in New Jersey.

Assemblyman Burzichelli's assisted suicide bill, known as the New Jersey Death with Dignity Act, would give doctors the right to intentionally prescribe a lethal dose of a barbituate, for the purpose of suicide. The New Jersey assisted suicide bill is similar to the Oregon assisted suicide Act.

In Oregon, depressed people have died by assisted suicide, and patients, who were denied medical treatment, were steered to assisted suicide by the state health plan. 

Jeanette Hall

Oregon resident Jeanette Hall, who was terminally ill and wanted assisted suicide, is alive today because her doctor convinced her to try medical treatment. Hall stated in a recent interview that:

If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me choose “life with dignity.” 

Assisted suicide should not be legal. 

Christie's opposition to state sanctioned suicide will hopefully cause a natural death for Burzichelli's New Jersey assisted suicide bill.

Link to similar articles:
New Jersey assisted suicide proposal is a dangerous prescription.
The dangerous help of assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide, fraught with consequences.

More than 1000 people killed by dehydration in the UK

By Alex Schadenberg, 
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

For many years I have stated that once death by dehydration becomes common people will react by demanding death by lethal injection. Death by dehydration is not a compassionate death. 

The Euthanasia lobby, who first promoted death by dehydration, now use the abandonment of vulnerable people that has led to death by dehydration becoming common as a reason for legalizing euthanasia.

An article written by Ben Riley-Smith and published in the The Telegraph on December 1, 2013 states that access to information files in the UK indicate that more than 1000 people died by dehydration related to neglect and abuse over the past 10 years in the UK.

The article stated:

More than 1,000 care home residents have died of thirst or while suffering severe dehydration over the past decade. 

Elderly and vulnerable patients were left without enough water despite being under the supervision of trained staff in homes in England and Wales. 

“How can we call ourselves civilised when people are left to starve or die of thirst? … It is an utter disgrace that they are ever left without the most basic care,” said Dr Alison Cook, a director at the Alzheimer’s Society.

The article then explained the statistics:

Figures obtained by this newspaper (The Telegraph) under freedom of information laws found that 1,158 care home residents suffered dehydration-related deaths between 2003 and 2012. Dehydration was named as either the underlying cause of death or a contributory factor, according to analysis of death certificates by the Office of National Statistics. 

Some 318 care home residents were found to have died from starvation or when severely malnourished, while 2,815 deaths were linked to bed sores. 

The real figures are likely to be far higher because residents who died while in hospital were not included.

The article continues:

In 2011 a BBC Panorama investigation secretly filmed staff at Winterbourne View private hospital, near Bristol, hitting and taunting patients with learning disabilities. Six staff members were eventually jailed, while 19 patients are due to receive compensation. In October a coroner said that Orchid View care home, near Crawley, West Sussex, where 19 residents died, was riddled with “institutionalised abuse” and criticised the CQC for rating it as good in 2010. 

Last year the CQC issued 818 warning notices to adult social care services in England – around two thirds more than the preceding year.  

Norman Lamb, the care and support minister, said the deaths from thirst and starvation were “entirely unacceptable”.

The fact is that killing a person, who is not otherwise dying, by dehydration, is ethically the same as euthanasia. Killing people by dehydration is usually a form of abuse and neglect.

South Australian Senator speaks out against euthanasia.

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia, and published on his blog on December 3, 2013.

Australian Capital (Canberra)

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

In his Address in Reply to the Governor General’s speech at the recent opening of the new Federal Parliament, outspoken South Australian Senator, Cory Bernardi, railed against the continued push in Australian States for euthanasia.

Whether you agree with the Senator on other issues or not, we are grateful for his words against euthanasia:

Senator & Mrs Bernardi

We must remember that part of the duty of government is to care for its citizens—particularly those who cannot care for themselves. Unfortunately, the push for legalised killing continues. In recent weeks Australia's first euthanasia clinic opened in Adelaide only a few streets away from where I live. Advocates of euthanasia claim that safeguards can limit the abuse of euthanasia. They say that the slippery slope does not exist. But they are either uninformed or are being deliberately misleading to further their cause. In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002, there have been a number of cases where patients were killed who did not explicitly request euthanasia and where nurses administered the lethal drugs despite this being against the law. And now, the Belgian parliament is even considering allowing euthanasia for minors. Tell me again that the slippery slope does not exist. Crossing the line to allow legalised killing opens up all sorts of questions that have dire consequences for us all, including the most vulnerable in our society.

NB: Mrs Sinead Bernardi is a Councillor with the Walkerville City Council. Sinead complained to council about the existence of Dr Nitschke's death facility.

Belgium appears that it will extend euthanasia to children. Quebec may do so shortly after the adoption of Bill 52.

Vivre dans la Dignité - November 27, 2013

The original statement was published by Vivre dans la Dignité in French.



Bill 52 is undergoing a detailed review by a parliamentary committee. If this bill which is closely modelled on the Belgian legislation is passed, doctors will be in the untenable position of having to carry out euthanasia upon request. The criteria for "medical aid in dying" (euthanasia) is so broad, that a patient suffering from a serious and incurable disease, unable to bear his suffering, may die by euthanasia.

The government wants to convince us that "medical aid in dying" will be reserved for a very small number of exceptional cases, and that the children will never be included. However, some groups - including the College of Physicians of Quebec who stated to the parliamentary committee that the law should apply equally to children and incompetent adults. In this context, we can not afford to ignore the experience of the last 10 years in Belgium. Euthanasia became legal in 2002 in Belgium for "exceptional cases, under strict conditions." However, a Senate committee has currently adopted by a large majority, a proposal to extend euthanasia to minors. According to experts, it is likely that this proposal will be adopted in plenary. 

It took 11 years for the Belgian euthanasia law to allow the killing of children by euthanasia. A Belgian survey estimates that only a dozen children will be euthanized each year. In 2002, the promoters of this deadly practice also claimed that there would be very few cases of euthanasia. In fact, the number of euthanasia deaths went from 235 cases in 2003 to 1,432 in 2012. The number of euthanasia deaths has doubled every four years. It is expected that it will be the same for children in Belgium. 

It is illusory to think that things would be different in Quebec. Do not play the ostrich. Do not ignore what is happening in jurisdictoins where euthanasia is legal. Reject any legislation that would allow doctors to kill their patients.

Sources: Citizen Network Living with Dignity and Physicians Alliance for the Total Refusal of euthanasia. 

Follow us on Twitter at @vivredignite and @ collectifmed.  
For further information or to arrange an interview. 

Contact: Nicolas Steenhout 
Director Living with Dignity 
info@vivredignite.com 
438-931-1233

Petition to the Belgian government - Stop euthanasia of minors!

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) Europe is supporting a petition to the Belgian government demanding that they reject the bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.

Sign the Petition (Link).

The petition, was launched by a group of students. 
The petition states in English:

Commissions of Social Affairs and Justice of the Belgian Senate are currently debating the extension of euthanasia to minors.

Faced with this situation and not having had the opportunity to express our position in a democratic vote*, we cannot remain silent and we call on the government to stop such legislation, from a culture of death that we cannot support. Indeed, the current law has already had many abuses, that have never been punished (euthanasia of minors and demented prisoner for psychological reasons, to a condition likely to be altered, without the consent Person of euthanized, etc..). These abuses are denounced by many health professionals and lawyers, in Belgium and abroad. 

At the initiative of individual students, so we call the politicians to abandon these proposed laws and provide resources in support of life, palliative care and vulnerable people in our society. 

* The programs of the political parties never referred to a change in the euthanasia law.

Link to the petition: http://www.citizengo.org/en/860-no-euthanasia-europe

Nederlands (français en bas):

De Senaatscommissies voor sociale aangelegenheden en justitie zijn momenteel aan het debatteren over een uitbreiding van de euthanasiewet voor minderjarigen.

De burgers van dit land hebben hun mening via democratische weg niet kunnen geven*. Wij vragen de regering af te zien van dit wetsvoorstel. Deze wet is een uiting van een cultuur van de dood. De huidige wetgeving opent de deur voor misbruiken. Vandaag de dag reeds wordt vaak overgegaan tot euthanasie van minderjarigen, dementerenden, gevangenen voor psychologische motieven, personen wiens gezondheidstoestand kan wijzigen en personen die niet hebben toegestemd. Dit zonder dat sancties worden getroffen. Deze misbruiken werden aangeklaagd door medici en juristen in binnen- en buitenland. 

Studenten van verschillende universiteiten van het land roepen de politieke klasse op te verzaken aan deze wetsvoorstellen. Men moet nu werk maken van nieuwe wetten voor het leven, betere palliatieve zorgen en de zwaksten in de samenleving beschermen. 

*De partij programma's hebben nooit melding gemaakt van een wijziging van de euthanasiewet.

Français (Nerdelands boven) :

Les commissions des affaires sociales et de la justice du Sénat belge débattent actuellement de l'élargissement de l'euthanasie aux mineurs.

Face à cette situation et n'ayant eu l'occasion d'exprimer notre position lors d'un vote démocratique*, nous ne pouvons nous taire et appelons le gouvernement à prendre la mesure des enjeux d'une telle législation, émanant d'une culture de mort que nous ne pouvons cautionner. En effet, la loi actuelle a déjà subi de nombreuses dérives, n'ayant jamais été sanctionnées (euthanasies de mineurs et de déments, de prisonniers pour motifs psychologiques, en vue d'un état de santé risquant d'être altéré, absence de consentement de la personne euthanasiée, etc.). Ces dérives sont dénoncées par de nombreux professionnels de la santé et du droit, en Belgique et à l'étranger. 

À l'initiative de différents étudiants, nous appelons donc la classe politique à renoncer à ces propositions de lois et à travailler à de nouvelles, en faveur de la vie, des soins palliatifs et des personnes fragiles de notre société, qui font toute sa richesse. 

*Les programmes des partis politiques n'ayant jamais fait allusion à une modification de la loi euthanasie.

Links to similar articles:
Belgian Senate committee approves doctors killing children with disabilities by euthanasia.
Belgian Senate committee to vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.
Belgian euthanasia promoter admits that there are problems with the euthanasia law.