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 let’s not deal with that here).
Why might that be? Euthanasia consciousness rests on two intellectual pillars–that 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 idea–often reduced to that most effective of all soundbites, “choice”–turns 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 request–120 in this survey–as those who asked to die–128 in this survey–but often doctors have nurses do the dirty work–and they aren’t 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 patient’s 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 patient’s 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 patient’s wishes.
Not if they weren’t 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 physician’s 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. Here’s the proper summary: “This study shows that euthanasia poisons everything it touches. Legal guidelines don’t 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.”
June 5th, 2010 | 3:36 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap and Always American, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing » Secondhand Smoke | http://shar.es/mwnnf [...]
June 5th, 2010 | 4:40 pm
This is is just one more illustration that the “slippery slope” argument, with respect to the Culture of Death is an apt one. Alarmingly, many thousands of college students are routinely taught in “critical thinking” (usually freshman comp.) classes that “slippery slope” arguments are, per se, logical fallacies and, therefore, can be rejected out of hand. In fact, it usually tops the list of “logical fallacies” that they are taught to recognize. This means that thousands of young minds are being taught to ignore or scorn demonstrations that one measure that depreciates the inherent value of human life leads to others. Ironically, there is mounting evidence on many fronts that acceptance of such practices as “euthansia” has put western society on a well-greased and precipitous moral slope.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Thanks Lisa Nicholas, Ph.D. I am always amused when accused of “slippery slope” advocacy. I respond by noting I don’t project fears, but recite facts. That usually stymies my critic, probably for the very reason you suggested. This is really happening, it is verifiable, and to too many, it doesn’t matter.
June 5th, 2010 | 6:42 pm
Terminal sedation, not to kill the patient, except as a side effect, but undertaken with the objective of controlling pain is normal palliative care. One has to be careful about confusing the public here. Palliative sedation, and patient refusal of medical treatment, are not euthanasia. Any confusion only serves the thinking that these normal ways of dealing with death are not part of current practices and must be brought in as part of a Euthanasia package. Margaret Sommerville has recently written an excellent article sorting these things out.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Rachel. I agree and have written as much here and in publications. Thanks. But the Netherlands has about a 15% death rate by this method, with doctors using it instead of euthanasia, and so it needs to be done for proper reasons.
June 5th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
>>The worst part is that once a culture catches the euthanasia virus, abuses that would have once caused an uproar are shrugged off as of little consequence.<<
I ask, as many others might also ask, how does one fight any virus which can not be seen by human eyes?
Would it not be just as easy to fight sin and forgiven sins who believe that they are truly so called gods in our world in todays society which we also can't see?
Just a little something to think about Wesley?
What do you mean by that Victor? On second taught forget I asked! (lol)
Peace
June 5th, 2010 | 9:35 pm
” … 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.”
Radical? I can’t think of any freedom more basic. Are you suggesting that someone else has a right to my body that’s superior to my own? Am I somebody’s slave, someone’s property, that they can tell me what I can or cannot do to my own body?
Perhaps someone would like to tell me where this imagined superior authority of theirs comes from.
June 6th, 2010 | 1:01 am
How do you suggest we make a difference regarding all this? It seems as though the vast majority have been brainwashed in to devaluing human life mostly in order to facilitate the comfort and ease of their own lives. The slippery slope is too slippery!
June 6th, 2010 | 11:03 am
E.K. These stories are important to keep the virus from spreading. When advocates assure people it will all be strictly controlled, it’s baloney. We have the facts–not alarmist supposition–but facts to prove they are wrong. That’s one reason I do this–to help arm others to fight the good fight. Thanks.
June 6th, 2010 | 5:53 pm
History Writer: The ”imagined superior authority”, that you refer to, is reason itself.
Reason tells us that some things are inherently immoral, even if we choose them for ourselves.
you’re right, of course, that one is no one’s slave. But what if we choose behavior, for ourselves, that is destructive, in fact, it’s indistinguishible from the effects of a slavemaster?
Also, we have doctors/nurses euthanizing people, not because these patients choose to be killed, but because the doctors conclude that this is the ”best” decision.
June 6th, 2010 | 6:23 pm
[...] euthanasia is becoming increasingly common in Belgium and in the [...]
June 6th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
[...] Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing [...]
June 6th, 2010 | 9:50 pm
[...] Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing [...]
June 7th, 2010 | 8:49 am
[...] 3. Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing [...]
June 7th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
[...] euthanasia is becoming increasingly common in European nations such as Belgium and the [...]
June 7th, 2010 | 9:15 pm
[...] study analyzes the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium Wesley J. Smith analyzes a new peer-reviewed paper in the Canadian Medical Association [...]
June 10th, 2010 | 5:42 pm
[...] euthanasia is becoming increasingly common in European nations such as Belgium and the [...]
June 10th, 2010 | 9:11 pm
[...] euthanasia is becoming increasingly common in European nations such as Belgium and the [...]
June 16th, 2010 | 8:15 am
HistoryWriter asked: “Am I somebody’s slave, someone’s property, that they can tell me what I can or cannot do to my own body? Perhaps someone would like to tell me where this imagined superior authority of theirs comes from.”
The person who can tell you what you can or cannot do to your own body is God, your creator. Not only can He tell you, He has done so in writing in the Bible. Just because you think you are the master of your own destiny doesn’t make it so. It’s by God’s grace and mercy that He withholds His wrath for the most part – but it will not always be so. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus before it is too late!
June 18th, 2010 | 10:17 am
[...] ==> Here <== for the rest of the story [...]
June 28th, 2010 | 10:33 pm
[...] Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing –… [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact