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

an updated report from Alex SchadenbergInternational Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition The Belgian euthanasia insanity continues with the case of a 24-year-old healthy woman (Laura) who will die by euthanasia this summer for psychological reasons, now the Inquisitr has provided more information on this horrific story. (Original article).The June 19 DeMorgen article by Simone Maas explains (google translated): Continue reading

By Wesley Smith There is no limit to the culture of death once it is fully off the leash.Dutch law allows euthanasia for children age 12 and over. But now a prominent pediatrician wants the age limits erased. Continue reading

HOPE Symposium. Adelaide May 2015. "I am worried that the liberty of some may lead to a loss of freedom of others." Professor Theo BoerOn the 22nd and 23rd of May this year, 110 people opposed to euthanasia & assisted suicide converged on Adelaide, South Australia for the Fourth International Symposium associated with the work of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.Drawing delegates and speakers from across the globe, the focus of this event was: Standing Strong, together. Supporting the necessity of working together across diverse backgrounds for our common cause of opposing euthanasia & assisted suicide law.The event was hosted by HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide in partnership with Euthanasia Free New Zealand, Doctors Opposed to Euthanasia and the disability network, Lives Worth Living.Opening the full day program was an address via video from Dutch Professor, Theo Boer. Readers may recall that on 10th of July last year a headline in the UK Daily Mail thundered:Don't make our mistake: As assisted suicide bill goes to Lords, Dutch watchdog who once backed euthanasia warns UK of 'slippery slope' to mass deaths.Former member of one of the Dutch Euthanasia Evaluation Commissions, Theo Boer, had changed his mind and had begun to warn other countries of his concerns about the Dutch experiment.Boer reminded delegates about what it was that had created his about face. These issues included the rapid escalation in number, the expansion of the criteria, the creation of mobile euthanasia teams etc., all leading to his conclusion that, "(p)erhaps the mere existence of a law is an invitation to see assisted dying as a normality instead of a last resort. The Dutch and Belgian laws on assisted dying, instead of being a respectful compromise, much rather function as stepping stones towards more radical changes in the way we organize our deaths. The offer of assisted dying may be a relief to some. But it also sends unwanted signals to terminal patients, elderly citizens, to people suffering from life, yes, to anyone who knows that life can very, very hard. The signal that death may be a good remedy for suffering. The signal that a natural death is a terrible and inhumane death. The signal that autonomy equals dignity. The signal that in the end we can do without you and that we're not the ones to keep you in the boat."Boer worries that this push for, 'the liberty of some may lead to a loss of freedom of others.'As the day unfolded, we heard Boer's chilling concerns echoed through the voices of some who had been directly affected by this creeping culture of death. As I observed, though Belgium and the Netherlands have advanced well beyond legalisation that the effects of this creeping death culture are evident even in places, like Australia, where euthanasia & assisted suicide remain as unlawful acts.Boer summarised: "Needless to say, we should respect if patients refuse life-prolonging treatment. But actively helping them to die is of a different category. As I said, I can sympathize with those acts on an individual and exceptional basis. But I am no longer convinced that such exceptional acts deserve a legal basis. A society's signal that it is willing to organize the death for its citizens simply involves too many risks."Many years on, this is an echo from the very earliest inquiries into euthanasia. It's not a matter of 'we told you so' - the realities are so harsh and culturally debilitating for cheap point scoring. But it does speak to us about the nature of things; that, regardless of what people may choose to believe about the possibility of containment of a law or the safety of any law, that there will always be those who are at risk, there will always be exceptions and that exceptions will become the rule. Continue reading

by WESLEY J. SMITH Whoa! Don't tell me that euthanasia doesn't lead off a vertical moral cliff: A recent survey of Netherlander MD general practitioners found that very high percentages would kill cancer patients, and 1/3 would be willing to euthanize the mentally ill. From the PsychCentral story:For mental illness, only 34 percent would consider helping the patient die, and 40 percent would help someone with early-stage dementia to die. The rate was slightly lower for late-stage dementia, at 33 percent. Continue reading

By John Keown First published on the Ethikapolitika websitePhysician-assisted suicide (PAS) is in the news â�¦ again.The Washington Post reported on Valentine's day that since the death of her husband, Diane Rehm, the NPR talk show host, is emerging as a "key force" in the "right to die" debate. The Post relates that she is addressing fundraising dinners for "Compassion and Choices," a pro-PAS pressure-group. The Post quotes her as saying: Continue reading

  By Paul Russell"What do you want to do when you leave school?" A casual conversation starter I think I've probably had with each of my children at some point - even repeatedly. It had an additional context when I raised it with Joseph recently in a quiet moment. Joseph, in his fourteen years had had probably more prospective careers than most of us could think of; ranging from a long period when he was convinced he would be a priest to only recently wanting to 'go into business' operating a pizzeria out of our kitchen (Mum had other ideas!). Sometimes this kind of exchange is simply banter; a time filler exploring the thoughts and ideas of a child with ever-expanding horizons as the world opens up before him or her."A firefighter, Dad!" "But Joseph, the fire brigade probably won't accept someone with Down syndrome, mate. It just won't happen." Okay! I know! That sounds like a harsh response, but it's not. Joseph and I have great conversations about all sorts of things and I am confirmed in my belief that, as he grows up, like all children, he needs to learn to make distinctions between daydreams and reality. Anne and I are also as firmly committed to providing him with the very best educational and emotional platform we can. But we've done that for all our children, so that's hardly surprising, even if fleshing that out requires somewhat a different approach from the others.The question of disability is a consistent theme throughout Gerbert van Loenen's book: Do You Call this a Life? Blurred Boundaries in the Netherlands' Right-to-Die Laws. Ostensibly chronicling and analysing the history and progression of the Dutch affair with euthanasia, van Loenen's crisp prose refers constantly to the changing and challenging of concepts in Dutch academia and politics in relation to the worth of human life. In summary: once human life is valued only in subjective terms of relative merit or worth, there is an inexorable extension of application, in terms of euthanasia laws, from a limited cohort to almost anyone.It is unfortunately all too common an experience of those living with disability and their families that there will have been occasions when the kind of subjective evaluation: "I would rather be dead thanâ�¦" raises its ugly head. The Dutch are not alone here. But what the Dutch and the Belgians have effectively done with their respective euthanasia laws is enshrine the 'Life Unworthy of Life' principle in both law and practice in respect to the most grave of matters: life and death.I asked a Belgian colleague recently why there has been no apparent organised rebuttal of their Euthanasia laws from the Belgian disability community. After all, such organisations exist everywhere that euthanasia and assisted suicide laws have been debated in recent years and the 'disability voice' is a potent force. He answered by saying that people living with disability in his country are well respected and have excellent supports focussed on helping people achieve their potential and independence. Good news. But he then added the caveat to the effect that the focus on achieving potential is highly utilitarian; that those who cannot jump this high hurdle in Belgian society are shunned; have no voice. Echoes of the 'useless eaters' of an earlier European society.Van Loenen says something similarly chilling about Dutch society:(Dutch) Ethicist Hans Reinders describes how the physicians' views on what makes life valuable may influence how they deal with their patients. Physicians and caregivers might believe that the valuable life consists in each individual developing into something greater. Writing about the care of people with mental disabilities, Reinders noted the tendency of caregivers to want these dependent individuals to develop, even the severely handicapped ones. If caregivers apply this way of thinking, it implies that the treatment must help the disabled individual improve.When this proves impossible, medical staff are confronted with their own limits. This is uncomfortable. Reinders quotes the German remedial educationalist Emil Kolb, who describes this phenomenon: "When there is nothing more to examine or to do, the researchers and doers are confronted with the possible futility of their own actions. And this must not be allowed to happen!" Physicians cannot allow the disabled individual to simply be; they must help him to develop. Emil Kolb summarizes this belief "What does not become something, is nothing."It is important how a physician views his own life, says Reinders, because this view affects the physician's ideas on the value of a dependent disabled life. People who consider their own development and independence to be important and who see themselves as the author, creator of their own life story, filled with choices and possibilities, will have a problem with individuals who are dependent on other people and experience no development at all. "From the perspective of people who view their own existence as a project of which they themselvesâ�¦are the author, a severely disabled life must inevitably seem completely pointless. A condition that appears to them like death, even if it does not coincide with it." Continue reading

By Alex Schadenberg International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition A study concerning the euthanasia practise in the Netherlands that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics on February 18 found that 34% of Dutch doctors will consider euthanizing a person who is either mentally ill, living with dementia or "tired of living." This recent study proves that euthanasia is expanding and is contagious.The researchers sent a questionnaire to 2269 eligible doctors with 1456 completing the questionnaire, a 64% response rate. Continue reading

This is the edited text of a talk given by Gerbert van Loenen in the USA in 2014. The Netherlands changed profoundly since euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were legalized. The way people cope with suffering, and, more importantly, with people who are suffering, is no longer as it used to be.It all looked so easy in the beginning.The debate about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide started with examples of competent people who were in pain and demanded euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. I'd like to call these the classic cases.It always starts with the classic cases. Every debate about right-to-die laws starts with the more obvious and easier examples. This was how it started in the Netherlands thirty years ago. And this is how it starts today in other countries where physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are being discussed, like France, Germany and also here in Canada.These same classic cases are the ones that are mentioned in the media, in movies, in debates about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. They are the examples that are easy to understand, even if you're not yet convinced that right-to-die laws should be enacted.In these debates the main argument for right-to-die laws is the autonomy of the individual. Someone who is suffering should be able to decide for himself if he wants to live or prefers to die. Autonomy is indeed an essential value in our western societies. Where we live, what we do, whom we love is up to us. And so it seems only logical that we should also have the right to decide for ourselves when we die. The patient who has a good reason for wanting to die, should not be left out in the cold; physicians should have the right to help him die with dignity.In the Netherlands, a physician has the legal right to administer a lethal dose of drugs to a patient who suffers severely and who demands to die. If the patient takes these drugs himself, it is called physician-assisted suicide, if the physician injects the drugs, it is called euthanasia. Both are legal in the Netherlands.Euthanasia is only legal if the patient explicitly demands it. Without a patient's request, euthanasia is murder, as it was stressed initially in the Netherlands and today in other countries where right-to-die laws are being discussed.However, in the Netherlands, euthanasia practice did not remain limited to the classic cases of competent patients who are suffering. As soon as euthanasia was made legal by the highest court, the next debate started.For instance, incompetent patients also suffer. If Uncle Harry can demand euthanasia when he becomes ill, should his nephew Garret really continue to suffer when he is in trouble, just because Garret has an intellectual disability? If Aunt Monica can demand euthanasia when she falls ill, should her niece Catherine really be forced to endure pain, just because Catherine is a child? The idea that it is feasible to limit euthanasia to competent people has turned out to be unrealistic. If you accept that suffering can be alleviated by terminating the patient's life, it is not easy to define new limits. At least in the Netherlands we are still looking for the new limits.After 30 years of experience with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands, there is no unambiguous conclusion. There seems to be a sunny side, as well as a dark side. The positive side is represented by the thousands of uncontroversial cases where patients get euthanasia at their request and, only in a minority of cases, physician-assisted suicide. Around 3.5 percent of the people who died in 2013 in the Netherlands died from a lethal dose of drugs administered or handed to them by a physician for the purpose of terminating their lives. These cases were almost always reported, the reported cases were reviewed by review committees that rarely found irregularities. Most of these cases involved cancer patients with limited life expectancies who died at home with the help of their general practitioner. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the classic euthanasia cases, they do exist and they can be monitored by the relevant authorities. These are the examples that my fellow countrymen like to refer to when they present lectures abroad about this gem of Dutch society. And they are right; the vast majority of cases where people's lives are being terminated are in accordance with the law. However, there also is the less easily controlled and only semi-regulated practice of termination of life without request, or non-voluntary euthanasia. Legally these cases are based on the principle of necessity, or force majeure: in emergency situations and under certain conditions a physician is allowed to do things that he is normally not allowed to, namely to terminate the lives of his patients without request.In 2010 there were about 300 cases of termination of life without request in the Netherlands, before there were up to 1000 cases of termination of life without request per year in the Netherlands. We know this thanks to an anonymous survey amongst physicians that is being repeated every five years. The number is based on an extrapolation. What is going on in these cases of termination of life without request?We do not know exactly, as most of them are not reported. A number of these cases concerns severely handicapped or ill infants.Like the son of a father I interviewed, who had been born with spina bifida. Eleven years ago the father agreed to have the life of his baby son terminated. The baby was transferred to the Groningen University Hospital, where the doctors told the parents the prognosis. Their boy would require many operations and he would probably have to live in an asylum for the handicapped. Trying to imagine what kind of life was awaiting his son, the father realized that he wouldn't be able to endure such a life himself, so he couldn't demand that his son did, he explained to me. The parents and the physicians agreed that it was better to terminate the life of this boy. Between 1997 and 2004 pediatricians reported 22 cases of termination of life of infants with spina bifida in the Netherlands.These instances of non-voluntary euthanasia, that jeopardize the image of euthanasia as a symbol of the autonomy of the citizen, are not very controversial in the Dutch media, in parliament or in medical associations. Most of these cases are not reported and take place surreptitiously.More important than the figures, however, is the mentality, or the way people think and talk about illness and handicaps, and about ill and handicapped people. In the media, there are many debates about life that is marked by severe handicaps or disease. Typically, the question that pops up in these debates is whether these lives are still worth living, or death would be a relief? The motivation for this way of thinking is utterly humanistic. The ideal is that every human being develops his or her human potential, that every human will be more developed tomorrow than he is today. This also goes for people who are challenged by handicaps or disease; they are entitled to support to develop themselves as much as their fellow-citizens. The Dutch welfare system is lavish compared to most other countries; everybody is given a chance to develop himself, no matter what it takes.There are people, however, who are so ill or so severely handicapped that, regardless of the effort, they will remain unable to develop themselves. All you can do for these people is take care of them. The Dutch reaction to these cases appears to be one of desperation.Or to quote a mother who talked about her daughter with multiple disabilities on public television: Continue reading

By Wesley J. SmithJanuary 28, 2015  I have been reporting on the non-voluntary euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands for more than 20 years, the infanticide, euthanasia of the elderly "tired of life," psychiatrists killing the mentally ill.Often people hear this truth and yawn, "Oh, humâ��but Brittany Maynard!" Continue reading