by Michael Cook This article first appeared on the Bioedge Blog Ed: Michael Cook bells the cat here: Whether it is Nitschke and Exit or even pro-death groups within countries where euthanasia is legalised, there will always be those for whom the law is never enough.The leading Dutch right-to-die society is seeking talks with the Dutch medical association (KNMG) for approval of a "peaceful pill" which will allow its members to kill themselves without the help of a doctor. Continue reading

Recently the ABC's Q&A program focussed on the issue of euthanasia. Some called it, 'The Denton Show' given the dominance in the time given to (and taken by) former comedian, Andrew Denton in espousing his zeal for assisted suicide as a panellist. Audience member, Luke Formosa, after a pre-amble asked Denton: "How do you propose Australia's euthanasia laws would protect the most vulnerable people, when the example in The Netherlands and The (sic) Belgium are showing the exact opposite?"Denton did attempt to answer Formosa's question in an oblique way but preferred to focus upon the claim that the 2014 Dutch report on euthanasia deaths had noted that, '550 newborn babies with diseases or disabilities were killed'. Continue reading

In a debate in Aberdeen Scotland a few years back I was confronted with a new and extremely restrictive model of euthanasia law proposed by my esteemed opponent that night. If my memory serves, the person needed to be in the last week of life and dying from a terminal illness; the argument being something like, 'Oh! Well! A few days earlier won't matter much!' I am paraphrasing here, my opponent was a retired professor and was far more articulate than that. Nevertheless, this was the shorthand thrust of the argument.I said on the night that I did not doubt the sincerity of my opponent but that we needed to recognise that there were a number of organisations involved in pursing legal change and that many of them had different points of view about where the 'line' should be drawn. Continue reading

By Alex SchadenbergExecutive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition The 2014 Netherlands euthanasia report was released indicating that there was another 10% increase in assisted deaths. There were also 41 assisted deaths for psychiatric reasons and 81 assisted deaths for dementia. The term assisted death refers to deaths by euthanasia and assisted suicide.The 2014 report stated that there were reported 5306 assisted deaths up from 4829 reported assisted deaths in 2013. These numbers do not include the unreported assisted deaths. Continue reading

by Paul Russell: "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." G.K. Chesterton.Such are the consequences of breaking down the prohibitions on killing and assisting in suicide.Western democracies seem more and more these days to have forgotten that the big statute laws such as the prohibitions on homicide are really about the state codifying immutable truths as custodians of genuine, equal and inalienable rights. The principle error in places like The Netherlands and Belgium with euthanasia was the acceptance of the false principle that, in all things, the state is a law unto itself; that it can define and redefine the nature of things by its own will.There are always consequences. When we change from 'do not kill' to 'only kill in some circumstances' we necessarily need to define those circumstances; the 'small laws'. These 'small laws' lack the precision of the 'big laws'. In terms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, they rely on subjective assessment. Whereas the 'big laws' are clear and allow for our courts to assess the circumstances, attendant penalties and the application of mercy, the 'small laws' such as who might qualify for state sanctioned death, are really little more than unenforceable guidelines.The moral code prohibiting homicide - which the law had previously endorsed and enforced - is breached. The 'small laws' that follow are entirely consequential and support Chesterton's hypothesis. Indeed, it can be observed that the necessity of these consequential 'small laws' can be taken as a retrospective proof that the 'big law' was, itself, a guarantee of a freedom or duty that existed prior to the state and which the state should never have messed with.Difficult if not impossible to enforce, these new 'small laws' render the 'big law' increasingly impotent in its original principles of protecting citizens from harm. In The Netherlands, successive court judgements from the 1980s preceded the 2002 legislation and 'small laws' continue to follow on in one form or another.In Belgium, the public prosecutor's role in pursing homicides is deeply compromised in respect to euthanasia. That office has been largely neutered; the regulatory role having been passed to a commission who assesses reports on each euthanasia deaths properly notified. In more than a decade, no cases have been referred for possible prosecution. The growing list of publicised euthanasia cases suggest that there have been many where further scrutiny should have been applied. That some doctors don't report their cases at all is also well known. Even these flimsy guidelines are being deliberately flaunted without comment and without redress.Having trampled over the logical moral boundary against killing, more 'small laws' become inevitable. Again, Belgium springs easily to mind having extended its 2002 laws in 2013 to include euthanasia for minors and having also expanded the concept of the original law to now include euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.What began as a response, albeit a dubious one, to the question of suffering at the end-of-life, has become a right. The state, having created a right has a duty to provide the means. Initially this duty created no obligation on anyone except the state; the person would request euthanasia voluntarily and there was no obligation on any doctor to agree. Medical professionals were free to decline on grounds of conscience and/or on other grounds.That defence - the right to refuse or to dissent - is now also under serious threat in a number of places. Once the euthanasia monster is unshackled from the 'big laws' it feeds voraciously, gnawing away on the 'small laws' until it gains enough strength and momentum to tackle other 'big laws'.Conscientious objection is perhaps the last such domino to fall. Though not a 'big law' itself, in terms of formal statutes, it is a hitherto undisturbed 'big principle'. If euthanasia is a right, then there is logic in its imposition.This may come to a head soon in both Belgium and The Netherlands via a legal stouche following the suicide death in Holland of Milou de Moor after her approval for euthanasia was withdrawn. Her parents have said that they will sue her GP, who pressed for the euthanasia request to be stopped, and the Belgian hospital who agreed to reverse their earlier decision to proceed. In Canada, the recourse to conscience has fallen even before the breach of the 'big law' on homicide comes into force. The Quebec Government recently made it clear that they will expect the co-operation of all doctors in their coming euthanasia regime, even going so far as to threaten the loss of funding for agencies that refuse to comply.We break with the 'big laws' at our ultimate peril. 'Small laws' carry little force and are easily eroded of all potency overtime. This is one instance where 'big' is definitely 'better'.see also:Quebec tells doctors they will be made to practice euthanasiaFamily to sue over withdrawal of euthanasia  Continue reading

A complicated set of circumstances lead to the approval, over a three year period, of euthanasia for Dutch resident, Milou de Moor who suffered from Lupus; a debilitating autoimmune disease. Treated in Belgium at the University Hospital in Ghent, de Moor was to be euthanased by her neurologist of six years.However, her Dutch general practitioner, who had not been required to approve the euthanasia, intervened and, after discussing his or her reservations with the Ghent Hospital ethics committee, the approval for her euthanasia was formally withdrawn. On hearing the news, de Moor then took her own life.According to reports, the intervention at this point of de Moor's GP was entirely unexpected; especially considering that he or she had been virtually silent on the matter over the preceding three years and had seemed to support the process.The Dutch and Belgian laws presuppose the involvement of the persons GP, but they do not mandate it. De Moor's family are now said to be considering legal action against the GP and the Ghent hospital.There's much in this sad situation that we do not know. The GP concerned has not spoken publicly and is on leave.According to the media, de Moor's family wants to take action to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. One can understand their grief. But what, precisely, would a successful law suit prevent?This is a very serious question. On the face of it, perhaps the remedy being sought is to prevent any medical professional from intervening in a euthanasia process once initiated. If that is the case, any remaining sense of obligation of the state to protect its citizens will have been all but obliterated. Any vestige of process, be it genuine or otherwise, would become a rubber stamp; medical judgement and even any requirement of second or third opinions will become meaningless. The Low Countries will have reached euthanasia on demand.Over all of that, as I've pointed out before, the damage to the culture can be seen in this false dichotomy that only offers euthanasia or suicide as solutions. See also:SBS Dateline special report: Allow me to dieThe 'end of the therapeutic path': supporting suicide in disguise Continue reading

This first appeared at bioedge.org and is reprinted with permission. By Michael CookThere is good news and bad news about euthanasia from the Netherlands and Belgium in JAMA Internal Medicine earlier this month. But which is which depends on which side of the fence you sit. Continue reading

Alex SchadenbergInternational Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition A study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) analyzing the euthanasia deaths in the first year of operation at the Netherlands euthanasia clinic appears to have been done to prove that euthanasia is being done carefully at the clinic.The study: A study of the First Year of the End-of-Life Clinic for Physician-Assisted Dying in the Netherlands was published online on August 10, 2015. Continue reading

by Michael Cook 7 Aug 2015 first published at the Bioegde website. Sorry, we missed this euthanasia story from the Netherlands. It deserves to be more widely known.(Cobi Luck pictured on the day of her death.) Continue reading

Dutch expert: Children may be pressured by family members to die by euthanasia. Alex Schadenberg, International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention CoalitionThe Dutch News reported today that Professor Theo Boer, a Dutch euthanasia expert, is concerned that the Netherlands Paediatric Association (NVK) is extending euthanasia to children under the age of 12. Boer is concerned that children will be pressured by family members. Boer stated: Continue reading