EXPERTS ON OUT SIDE-EUTHANASIA DEBATE-RUETERS MAGAZINE 7/02


Melissa
EXPERTS ON OUR SIDE-EUTHANASIA DEBATE-REUTERS MAGAZINE 7/02
Sun Oct 26 11:56:09 2003
24.165.236.2

Euthanasia debate
In July 2002, Reuters Magazine asked Mr. Philip Nitschke from Australia and Mr. Bert P. Dorenbos from The Netherlands to answer some questions about euthanasia
Reuters: Is it a basic human right for people to decide how and when they die -and should the law be changed to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide? Nitschke: I believe competent adults have a right to end their life at the time of their choosing. The law recognises this and suicide is not a crime. However, the law does not allow for advice or help to be provided for those unable to end their lives themselves. I believe there is a need to change the law so that help can be provided to those who, because of unrelievable suffering, require assistance to end their lives. Dorenbos: There is no right to choose to die. The so-called right to die is an anti-social, self-destructive idea for cowards (and haters of mankind). The right thing to do is to protect life. If a law is changed to legalise euthanasia then all human life is no longer protected by law.

Reuters: Euthanasia attracts massive media coverage across the world, but how common is it and has demand been rising in recent years? Nitschke: A practice which attracts heavy legal sanction is notoriously difficult to study and quantify. Over the years several strategies have been developed that allow one to skirt the law. For example, doctors often help people to die by slowly increasing levels of morphine, claiming their prime intention is the relief of suffering, not to cause the death of the patient. Demand for help to die, or at least demand for access to information so that those suffering can end their lives themselves, has been rising steadily in the clinics I run. Dorenbos: The massive media coverage means that the fight for life and death is a major issue. However, as far as we know, there is no drastic rise in demand for euthanasia. We cannot know the facts because doctors are still not willing to report their cases.

Reuters: Would legalised euthanasia lessen respect for human life, leading to a slippery slope where vulnerable people of all groups are at risk? Nitschke: Those who argue against legislation fearing a "slippery slope" believe that what may eventuate from such change will be worse than the problems we confront now. I think this is unlikely, but recognise there is no easy way of providing reassurance. To do nothing condones the current inequity where the rich and powerful can almost always get help to die while the poor don't have this option. Clearly, any new legislative initiative needs to be monitored carefully so that evidence of a slippery slope can be detected and corrected, and, if necessary, even repealed. Dorenbos: Legalised euthanasia is void of all respect for human life. It is not the beginning of a slippery slope, it is already very much downhill. Each person who is considering whether to kill themselves, or asking to be killed by euthanasia, is by definition a vulnerable person. When the law allows killing, the objective law, that it is a basic human right that each person's life is protected under law, is changed for subjective legislation.

Reuters: Can the law provide sufficient safeguards against patients' relatives or doctors performing euthanasia against someone's will? Nitschke: The legislative models are clear. The patient has to be of sound mind and able to request help to die right to the end. If it is done "against the patient's will" it will also be against the law and murder is being committed. Generally, those using this argument say that those suffering will be "pressured" into "doing the right thing" and that there will be no way of knowing whether the decision to die is being obtained through coercion. Such arguments patronise the elderly. Dorenbos: Euthanasia is not safe. How can one be killed 'safely'? The question not only mention doctors but also patients' relatives as 'performing euthanasia.' Even by suggesting that relatives as well as doctors might perform euthanasia we are further down the slippery slope. The phrasing of the Dutch euthanasia law provides evidence that everyone's life is at risk. It is not surprising that the UN Human Rights Commission is worried about the protection of life in Holland.

Reuters: In a recent survey of UK doctors for the Times newspaper in London, 15 percent said they had helped a patient die at the patient's request. If euthanasia happens anyway, would legislation be a sensible step? Nitschke: Yes, of course. Current practice is unregulated and unchecked. There are no safeguards. Whether you get help to die is determined by money and social class and has nothing to do with need. Legislation restores equity and allows for monitoring. Dorenbos: If you have a law relating to life and death and there are numerous trespasses against that law and nothing is done about it, you have a serious legal, social and constitutional problem. Trespasses of a law can never be a sound foundation for a new law. That is legalised lawlessness.

Reuters: Would it damage the delicate patient-doctor relationship based on the long-held principle that doctors should "first do no harm". Nitschke: Quite the opposite. The current situation, where doctors have access to information (and lethal drugs) so that they or their families never need worry about a difficult death, leads to disquiet and resentment from other groups in society. For the medical profession to actively lobby to prevent legislation, while they themselves are the beneficiaries of the current system, has damaged the doctor-patient relationship. Dorenbos: The question answers itself. The doctor never should execute euthanasia. It is killing a person and not curing them.

Reuters: Where do religious and moral arguments fit into this debate? Nitschke: From the patient's perspective, they have come to terms with the religious and moral aspects of their request to die and feel comfortable with this. From the point of view of someone being asked to help end a patient's suffering, one has to look closely at one's own beliefs. On the four occasions I was legally able to administer a lethal injection I chose to set up a machine so that the patient could initiate the process. To me this was significant; I would fight for a patient's right to die at the time of their choosing, but this did not mean that I was prepared to administer the lethal drug. If a lucid patient can (and they almost always can) initiate the process that will end their lives then they should. Dorenbos: Everybody has a world view. To exclude one particular world view would be an unfair way to try to win a debate. This is especially grave in a debate about life and death-issues. Everybody has either a deistic, theistic, agnostic or atheistic world view.

Reuters: Opponents say there is no such thing as "dying with dignity" and that doctor-assisted deaths are fraught with difficulties - are they right? Nitschke: I have been involved in the process of helping terminally ill people in an environment where there is legislative protection and (as we now have) an environment where there is no lawful way of helping. To my mind it was infinitely better when there was a law that protected doctors and empowered patients. Dorenbos: Proponents of euthanasia indeed speak about compassion, peace, dignity. These are in fact moral and religious words. However, killing has nothing to do with dignity. A society that declares killing as a form of dignity is destroying its foundation of a civil society. Human dignity is about life, love and mutual respect in every circumstance. When Jesus Christ came to this earth and showed compassion he healed people. Mother Teresa showed compassion by feeding the poor, treating them with dignity.

Reuters: Has the Netherlands situation shown the way forward for the rest of the world? Nitschke: The slow and responsible way the Dutch approached the issue of voluntary euthanasia provides a model for the rest of the developed world. Decades of decriminalisation before the introduction of legislation allowed the issue to be fully considered and understood by the population. It also provided the opportunity for careful study so that any evidence of a developing "slippery slope" would emerge. When legislation was finally introduced, it then reflected the views of a society interested in openly addressing important contemporary issues. Dorenbos: The Netherlands euthanasia situation has highlighted how essential it is to protect human life. The bottom line of the debate is that the pro-death euthanasia movement promotes the right to die. This is nothing to do with suffering and illness. It is the promotion of an idea and ideology, a "belief". It is essential to discuss the issue of life and death from the point of view what kind of civil society we want to have. The Netherlands is an alarm clock to wake up the rest of the world.

For contact: Bert P. Dorenbos,
President Cry for Life, (Schreeuw om Leven)
Ruitersweg 35-37, 1211 KT Hilversum, The Netherlands
Ph. +31 35 6244352; fax +31 35 6249141;
e-mail info@schreeuwomleven

e-mail: schreeuw@solcon.nl 

http://www.schreeuwomleven.nl/Euthanasia/Index.htm 
GREAT SITE (in english)

THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT TERRI, ARE ON OUR SIDE,
AND WANT TO HELP TERRI!

ANTI Euthanasia
English Articles at site above!!!

APFN
Florida's Terri Case Opens the Door for Euthanasia in the USA
Sat Oct 25 17:02:33 2003
64.140.158.73

Florida's Terri Case Opens the Door for Euthanasia in the USA

Maybe someone knows who to contact here? They are willing to help! Anyone with any connections to Terri 's Camp?

We are available to help to answer your questions and to testify in this case!

Reprinted with permission of Bert P. Dorenbos, President Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life) Hilversum, Holland
Ph. +31 35 6244352, e-mail web site: http://www.schreeuwomleven.nl/english.htm 

We are available to help to answer your questions and to testify in this case!

http://www.wf-f.org/euthanasiainholland.html




Strong Euthanasia Warning from Holland

By Bert P. Dorenbos, President Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life) Hilversum, Holland

Florida's Terri Case Opens the Door for Euthanasia in the USA

Florida's 6th Circuit Court Judge George Greer has ordered that Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo's feeding tube be removed as of Wednesday October 15th at 2 P.M. That tube provides her with essential nutrition and hydration.

The request for this decision came from Mrs. Schiavo's husband Michael. Medical evidence and information given by Mrs. Schiavo's parents and other visitors prove that ending her life is a violation of Mrs. Schiavo's human rights.

The decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Florida is more important than the Supreme Court Decision to ban euthanasia in the United States of America. This Florida Court decision opens the (flood)gate of subjective decision making in cases of life and death.

At the moment that, in the Dutch debate on euthanasia, a court ruled that withholding food and fluid is a permissible medical treatment the road was paved for the Euthanasia Law that is in force in Holland now. It was in the case of Mrs. Ineke Stinissen, who had been in coma for several years that a Dutch court ruled in 1990 that food and fluid could be withheld from her. As is the case of Mrs. Schiavo, this was at the request of her husband. Mrs. Stinissen died shortly afterwards from starvation.

Since then the discussion about the termination of life has no longer been based on objective facts on the terminal illness in the life of a patient, but more and more on a subjective approach to the quality of that patient's life and the subjective view of professional and non professional persons about the right to life or death.

National Constitutions, the International Declaration on Human Rights, the recent United Nations Declarations are all based on the universal protection of the life of a person whatever his circumstances are and without any form of discrimination. In medical circles it is still accepted that, based on the historical Hippocratic Oath, a medical doctor will never apply his skill to kill a person.

It is not without reason that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has questioned the Dutch Government expressing its members' concern on the subjective regulations in the Dutch Euthanasia law which allows a doctor to kill a patient. These questions are still not answered. In Holland the debate has not stopped with the introduction of the euthanasia law but is is even increasing because doctors are still not willing to report their euthanasia cases. Patients are not sure if the doctor helps to kill or to cure. The Dutch Euthanasia Law is a very dangerous example to follow.

It is extremely important that those organizations who support the Supreme Court decision to ban Euthanasia take action against this Florida Court Decision. An appeal should be made.

We are available to help to answer your questions and to testify in this case.

Reprinted with permission of Bert P. Dorenbos, President Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life) Hilversum, Holland
Ph. +31 35 6244352,

e-mail: schreeuw@solcon.nl

web site: http://www.schreeuwomleven.nl/english.htm 







TERRI CASE FLORIDA

AUTHOR
TITLE (Source,Year)
TOPIC

Drs. Bert P. Dorenbos, President, Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life)
The Dutch Euthanasia Law (October 2003)
It is very important not to focus on the emotional side of the discussion when we talk about the Dutch euthanasia law, but to look very careful how the law is functioning within the framework of the Foundational law of Holland and the other laws of the free world countries around the world.

Press release 'STRONG EUTHANASIA WARNING FROM HOLLAND'

Euthanasia debate in Reuters Magazine, July 2002

Termination of Life on Request and Assisited Suicide (Further on in this document)



RECENT AND SPECIAL ARTICLES ABOUT EUTHANASIA IN THE NETHERLANDS



AUTHOR
TITLE (Source,Year)
TOPIC




K.F. Gunning, M.D. (The Netherlands) & Dr. Ph.Y.M.J.H. Schepens (Belgium)
To the members of European Parliament

(February 2001)
Letter of Concern by the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. The Law is incompatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamantal Freedoms

Jonathan Imbody
This is a Very Dark Week in Our History

(November 2000)
Comment of Christian Medical & Dental Associations, USA on Euthanasia Law

Christian Medical & Dental Association

California Pro-Life Council
Thoughtprovoking Video’s
Video’s about Euthanasia with links to producing organisations

Jonathan Imbody
Deadly Diagnosis in the Netherlands

(January 2001)
An example of Unwanted Euthanasia and systematic “Bed-Clearing”

Prof.dr. Thomas Schirrmacher
Euthanasia – Homocide on Demand or at the Doctor’s Discretion

(The Abolition of Abortion, 2000)
Analysis shows how Hitler would have it so much easier in the Netherlands now than in World War II





Dutch Government
Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, 1998

(Official English translation, February 2001)
Amended legislative proposal (by Lower House, November 2000) of “Euthanasia Law” to the Upper House of the States General.

Also links to information from the Dutch Government about the “Euthanasia Bill” in other languages









OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT EUTHANASIA IN THE NETHERLANDS



AUTHOR
TITLE (Source,Year)
TOPIC




Karel F. Gunning, M.D.
Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands

(Dutch Euthanasia – Worldwide Threat, 1995)
Discussion of Remmelink Report with Dutch Euthanasia figures of 1990

Herman van der Kolk, Esq.
Euthanasia from a Dutch Legal Perspective

(Dutch Euthanasia – Worldwide Threat, 1995)
Legal aspects of Dutch Euthanasia till 1995

Gijs van Brenk
Palliative Care in the Terminal Phase of Life

(The Threat of Euthanasia, 1996)
Hospices

Prof.dr. W.J. Eijk
The Ethical Approach of Life in a Culture of De



Main Page - Sunday, 10/26/03

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)