More expansion of euthanasia in Europe.
Two thread by me.
The “slippery slope” is often derided as a logical fallacy. But when one of the leading advocacy groups for euthanasia in Belgium posts an article entitled “Euthanasie: tijd voor de volgende stap, Euthanasia, time for the next step”, it’s hard not to think that it may not be so illogical after all.
The Humanistisch-Vrijzinnige Vereniging (Humanist-Liberal Association) complains that eligibility for euthanasia is far too restrictive. At the moment, only people with unbearable suffering can be euthanased. This leaves out people in irreversible comas, people with dementia, people with irreversible brain diseases and people who are under 18. This is manifestly unfair, the HVV contends.
However, this is not just a private initiative. In November Wim Distelmans, the chairman of the official Federal Committee on Euthanasia, released an open letter to Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo asking him to re-open a national debate on euthanasia. (At the time, Di Rupo was pulling a government together (this took 589 days) but now he is officially prime minister.) He and eight colleagues, like the HVV, have asked the Belgian government to update its 2002 euthanasia law. The proposed changes include these provisions:
- At the moment, advance directives are only valid for five years. This limit should be removed.
- Doctors who oppose euthanasia should be required to refer patients to a willing colleague.
- Assisted suicide should be permitted.
- It should be permitted to euthanase people with dementia who have written a living will.
- There should be no age limit for euthanasia. (A recent opinion poll claimed that two-thirds of Belgians approve of euthansia for minors.)
Institut Européen de Bioéthique, Dec 6
______________________________________________________________
Euthanasia is not just a lethal act, but a deadly ideological appetite–one that is never satiated. Once killing is unleashed as a solution to suffering, activists will always want more. Always. As I have written before, they remind me of the man killing plant in Little Shop of Horrors, growing ever larger and constantly yelling, “Feed me!”
Latest of so many cases in point: Belgian activists have a petition out to open euthanasia to minors and to force all doctors to be complicit in killing by creating a duty to refer to a death doctor if they are not willing to personally euthanize. Here is the Google translation of the petition, linked here in, I think, Flemish:
The Right to Euthanasia: Time for the Next Step. Euthanasia possible, even for those not aware, and who is a minor:
Through this petition we want the federal government, federal parliament seats and all democratic parties insist that the euthanasia during the next legislature will be expanded and refined. We ask the following enhancements:
• Since the advance [euthanasia request] is always revocable, is a time limit of five years obsolete. It is desirable to remove the time limit. The municipalities that the declarations of intent to register must already requires the parties to automatically notify the imminent expiration of the deadline.
• If the advance euthanasia was registered, its existence must be included on the chip of the electronic ID card.
• A referral qualify for the duty doctor who refuses euthanasia.
• Assisted suicide should be enrolled in the law on euthanasia.
• It must be ensured that hospitals that work with public money, the application of the legislation is not in the way.
Furthermore, we urge the law to expand:
• In people with irreversible brain disease or dementia, who previously wrote a living will.
• To minors within the current law, without prejudice to the definition of ‘euthanasia’ (the explicit and considered the request of the patient), and without an age limit to build.
“The next step,” that is the key. Note, it isn’t the “final” step. That’s because there never is a final step.
Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
Conscious or not, it is MURDER to kill the disabled.
Thread by me.
Terri Schiavo of Florida, who's vegetative state
and right to life became a national issue in 2005
The difference between a dead man and a man in a vegetative state used to be a thin line of whether
or not the body was still functioning. But what if the vegetative man is still conscious? That brings
the distinction into a whole new level.
Philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong gave a talk titled “Is he conscious? Does he want to be?” at the Trent Center for Bioethics on Friday, Dec. 9. He discussed clinical studies which have shown that despite the unresponsive display, patients in vegetative state may be still conscious. With assistance from an fMRI or an EEG scan, doctors can tap into the patient’s brain activity and “read their thoughts.”
The scanning study’s control was patients who received severe brain trauma and were confirmed to be in a vegetative state. The studies focused on the specific brain activity when the patient was commanded to “think about tennis” and the brain activity that occurred when the patient was commanded to “imagine anything other than tennis.” The distinctive brain activities were then coupled with a series of yes or no questions. If their answer was yes, the patient was told to think about tennis and if their answer was no, the patient was told to think about navigating through a house. In one case study, the patient answered five out of seven questions right by showing brain activity associated with tennis to questions for which an affirmative was the correct answer. The other two questions showed no response, and the doctors assumed the patient had gone to sleep.
This confirmation of consciousness in some vegetative patients brings up an ethical issue. Those at the bedside can now ask questions, including “do you want to live?” The vegetative patient’s answer to such a question may inform the ethical issue that arises each time we worry about “pulling the plug” on a clearly “living” person.
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."