Posted on 06/06/2010 9:41:56 AM PDT by wagglebee
Belgium has followed the Netherlands in jumping off a vertical moral cliff by embracing legalized euthanasia. The awful consequences that I predicted are now coming to pass; a steady increase in the number of cases, inadequate reporting, and a large percentage of non voluntary euthanasia deaths. Thus, I am anything but surprised by the study I analyze below, which echoes an earlier one reported here at SHS, that nearly as many Belgian euthanasia killings are non voluntary as of those that are voluntary (the concept of voluntary in this context being highly problematic, but lets not deal with that here).
Why might that be? Euthanasia consciousness rests on two intellectual pillersthat killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, and radical individualism in which we all own our bodies and have the absolute right to do what we wish with it, including make it dead. But interestingly, the latter ideaoften reduced to that most effective of all soundbites, choiceturns out to be far less robust than the acceptance of active killing as a proper method of ending suffering. In other words, once a society accepts killing as the answer to suffering, the request element becomes increasingly less important as doctors assume they are doing what is best for the patient by extinguishing their lives.
This has been the case in the Netherlands for for decades. Amazingly, the phenomenon of terminations without request or consent is even worse in Flanders, Belgium. In the present survey of nurses, not only were nearly as many patients euthanized without no request120 in this surveyas those who asked to die128 in this surveybut often doctors have nurses do the dirty workand they arent supposed to engage in euthanasia at all. From a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (download the PDF to see whole article):
Second, we wonder why nurses more often administered the life-ending drugs in cases without an explicit patient request than in cases of euthanasia. Perhaps nurses took a more active role out of concern for frailer patients who could no longer communicate, or for very old patients because physicians are more reluctant to give assistance in dying when dealing with these patients.30 Further, in cases of euthanasia, communication between the physician and the patient is common.
When the patient can no longer communicate, nurses are, by the nature of their work, more directly confronted with the patients suffering and may therefore wish to take a more active role in life-ending acts. We also have to consider that the administration of life-ending drugs without the patients explicit request may have included situations of terminal sedation or an increase in pain alleviation, in which the delegation by physicians to nurses to administer the drugs is considered common practice. Finally, although about half of the nurses reports indicated that there was no explicit request from the patient, it should be stated that the physicians and nurses probably acted according to the patients wishes.
Not if they werent asked! This goes beyond terminal non judgmentalism to actively justifying illegal acts, and proves that once the euthanasia monster is let out of its cage, the guidelines and safeguards become less protective than wet tissue paper, not only in the country where euthanasia occurs, but among professional studies of the practices.
And catch this bland conclusion:
By administering life-ending drugs at the physicians request in some cases of euthanasia, and even more so in cases without an explicit request from the patient, the nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession. Future research should closely monitor and examine the involvement of nurses in these practices nationally and internationally to allow comparisons between countries with and without euthanasia legislation.
Talk about missing the obvious point. Heres the proper summary: This study shows that euthanasia poisons everything it touches. Legal guidelines dont protect vulnerable patients from abuse once euthanasia is legalized. Moreover, nurses are particularly susceptible to being caught up in acts that are illegal when doctors, who many not wish to take the final life-ending act themselves, order them to carry out the termination. We also note that this study demonstrates that once killing becomes part of the medical armamentarium, it leads directly to patient abuse and medical criminality. This study highlights a reason why legalizing euthanasia is bad ethics and ever worse public policy.
Exactly!
Pro-Life Ping
Right to Die = Duty to Die
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Outsource it to Germany; they are good at killing Belgians...
The line between “voluntary euthanasia” and murder is a very thin one.
PALM: Im not dead!
INVESTORS: Ere. He says hes not dead!
MARKET: Yes, he is.
PALM: Im not!
INVESTORS: He isnt?
MARKET: Well, he will be soon. Hes very ill.
PALM: Im getting better!
MARKET: No youre not, youll be stone dead in a moment!
PALM: I think Ill go for a walk!
MARKET: Youre not fooling anyone, you know! [to INVESTORS] Look, isnt there something you can do?
PALM: [singing] I feel happy! I feel happy...!
[INVESTORS club PALM over the head]
MARKET: Ah, thanks very much.
I am completely willing to administer medications to alleviate pain and or anxiety due to oxygen starvation, but it is NOT MY JOB (or duty) to kill people
Time of death is in God's hands; not mine.
Word's gonna' get around on this stuff!
It’s not just the old and sickly they kill. Europeans are already giving suicide assistance to depressed teenagers and children.
Just as those of us on the side of life said would happen.
Avalanche coming.
The difference between this and gas chambers and ovens is only a matter of degree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.