Writing about the legalisation around the world of “assisted suicide” in 2012, palliative care oncologist José Pereira explained that “laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included…explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians (with the exception of Switzerland), and consultation by a second physician.”
Pereira found that, “although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia.” Indeed, in our aging population, the dementia example will crop up more and more. But explain this: when a lethal dose of medication is administered to such an individual, how exactly can this person have given informed “explicit consent”?
But back to Dr Pereira. He found “evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted.” He writes about people being “administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent,” and one jurisdiction where “almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported.”
“A terminal illness,” Dr Pereira continues, “is no longer a prerequisite.”
We’ve now set the bar pathetically low: in the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is “tired of living” is now being considered.
To a recent story in neighbouring Belgium. Pity Tom Mortier, who was informed of his mother’s death the day after it happened. And how? Mortier’s mother, Godelieva de Troyer, was put to death by a doctor for “untreatable depression” in 2012, even though she was not terminally ill. The Alliance Defending Freedom recently filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights on his behalf, as Mortier is now challenging Belgium’s laws that allow doctor-prescribed death. (Incidentally, the killing doctor is an oncologist with no psychiatric background.)
Angry? How would you argue your case? In short, who are you to say this is wrong? Who are you to tell Ms de Troyer what to do with her life? After all, the “sanctity of life” has no objective standing in the eyes of many in the chic, post-Christian West.
Such cases – and they will become more and more frequent – exemplify how modern ultra-individualism destroys the fabric that holds families and societies together. An over-18 year old wanting unnecessary plastic surgery or a stupid tattoo are private, individual matters for the person involved. “Assisted suicide”-on-tap is not.
Am I exaggerating? Take this argument, from a 2014 paper by David Shaw in the journal Transplantation, titled “Organ donation after assisted suicide: a potential solution to the organ scarcity problem.” “If organs donated by Swiss and foreign citizens assisted in committing suicide in Switzerland were used for transplantation, the country could achieve a surplus of organs. There are several practical problems and ethical and legal objections to this proposal, all of which can be overcome.” From the title alone, does anyone else get the sense that we’re almost talking, not about human organs, but increasing crop yields?
