Showing posts with label Euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Euthanasia. Show all posts

Thursday, 27 February 2025

75 years ago--Americans divided on euthanasia

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

It did come as a surprise to this blogger to come across this item from 1950 and see the large percentage of Americans who supported euthanasia. This was just five years after the end of a war that Americans and their allies fought against the Nazis, under whom euthanasia morphed into mass murder, followed by the Nuremberg trials of the perpetrators for crimes against humanity. I've been dismayed to see belief in the sanctity of human life declining over the last 50-60 years, but I didn't know it was already fairly low even 75 years ago (assuming the results of the survey are accurate, of course). As reported by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion and published in the Calgary Herald, February 27, 1950 (bold in original):

PRINCETON, N.J.--Public sentiment in a coast-to-coast survey by the American Institute is closely divided on the principle of euthanasia or mercy killing.

The weight of opinion is against the idea, but the margin is very close.

In testing the nation's views on this controversial and much discussed issue the Institute patterned its question after the model bill proposed by the Euthanasia Society of America. This proposal would call for the consent of the patient, and an examination by a board of doctors appointed by a court.

Here are the questions used in the survey and the vote:

A. "When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?"

B. If no, or no opinion, ask: "Would you approve of ending a patient's life if a board of doctors appointed by the court agreed that the patient could not be cured?"


Thirty-six per cent indicated approval and another 7 per cent on the second part, making the total as follows:

Favor mercy killing------43%
Oppose mercy killing-----46%
No opinion---------------11%

Opinion on the issue is not greatly different now from what it was when the Institute first tested sentiment with a similar question 13 years ago. There has been a small increase in the vote in favor.

The Sander case in New Hampshire and the Carol Paight case in Connecticut stimulated nationwide discussion of the pros and cons of legalized euthanasia.
When I read this article I had never heard of the Sander and Paight cases, but a quick Google search produced some results. First, the case of Dr. Herman Sander--as reported by Australian Associated Press and reported in the Cairns Post, January 5, 1950 (bold, capitals in original):

EUTHANASIA CASE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

DOCTOR INDICTED.

DEATH OF CANCER PATIENT.


NEW YORK, Jan. 3 (A.A.P.). A Manchester, New Hampshire, grand jury of 21 middle-aged men, was convened to-day to consider whether Dr. Hermann Sander should be indicted for murder. Sander, who is 40, has been accused of the mercy killing of an incurable woman cancer patient, by the injection of air into her veins, as she lay on her hospital deathbed.

The judge, instructing the jurors, asked if any had signed any of the widely circulated petitions supporting Dr. Sander. There was no response.

Sander, who is on bail, continued calling.on his patients to-day. He told reporters that he still felt his action was not legally or morally wrong, and added: "I believe my position ultimately will be vindicated.

Meanwhile euthanasists have made plans to use the Sander case as a wedge in seeking the adoption of "a mercy death law."

The vice-president of the Euthanasia Society of America (Mrs. Robertson Johns) said in NewYork: "This is absolutely the best case, yet for our cause. It is good, because of Dr. Sander's integrity, and because he did not hide what he did."

A member of the New Hampshire Legislature (Mr. Ray Sawyer) said be felt that something should be done about légalising mercy deaths. He suggested that physicians should draw up such a Bill. Later Dr. Sander was indicted by the grand jury on a charge of first degree murder.
According to Rick Holmes in the Derry News, June 30, 2011:

Probably you heard that earlier this month — June 3, 2011 — Dr. Jack Kevorkian died. He was of course the so called "Doctor Death." Last year, there was even a Hollywood movie about his career. His passing brought back to memory those events of a decade ago when we were all talking about the right — or wrong — of physician-assisted suicide.

While all the country's attention has been on Kevorkian, it is interesting to know that the very first trial for medical euthanasia involved a doctor who had once lived in Derry. In 1950 — exactly 50 years before the Kevorkian trial — there was the trial of Dr. Herman Sander.

Sander (1908-1996) was born in New York, the first child of George and Ada Sander. Ada had been born in New Jersey but George had emigrated from Dresden, Germany, in 1888. He was a 1901 graduate of Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N.J. with a degree in electrical engineering. Shortly after Herman's birth the family moved to Derry. Here, George Sander was employed as superintendent of the Derry Electric Company. They lived in an apartment at 71 East Broadway, directly across from today's McGregor Library Building. After a few years in Derry, the family moved to Manchester where he was employed with the Traction, Light and Power Company — the concern that ran the Manchester and Derry Trolley.

Herman grew up in Manchester and, while attending Central High School, he became the state's first Eagle Scout. He studied at the University of Munich and received his undergraduate degree at Dartmouth College (1930) and his medical degree from New York University. His entire career was spent practicing in the Manchester area.

In 1949, Mrs. Abbie Borroto lay dying of cancer in the Hillsborough County Hospital. The 60-year-old woman was suffering; she was racked with unbearable pain that no amount of medication could ease. During that year, she had wasted from 140 to 80 pounds. It seemed likely to most that she had only a few days to live. All day and night she was screaming for someone, anyone, to help her die.

Herman Sander was her doctor and knew he was powerless to reduce her suffering. He then gave four injections of air directly into her veins. She died painlessly in about 10 minutes. Dr. Sander entered into her medical records exactly what he had done. Sander's supervisor read the entry and reported the death to the police. An arrest warrant was quickly issued for Sander that charged him with wrongful death. A grand jury soon found that there was enough evidence to hold a murder trial.

In 1950, Herman Sander became the first doctor ever put on trial for "mercy killing." The trial was held at the Hillsborough County Courthouse and was attended by reporters from all over the state and nation including novelists Fanny Hurst and John O'Hara. The prosecution was led by future U.S. Sen. Louis Wyman. On the witness stand Dr. Sander told the jury he thought Mrs. Borroto was already dead. But if that were true, why did he gave a dead patient the injections? In answer to that question, all he could say was, "Why I did it I cannot tell. It didn't make any sense."

All across America there was an active debate on Dr. Sander and mercy killing. Evangelist Billy Graham said the court should find him guilty of murder and make "an example" of him. In his hometown of Candia, 605 of the town's 650 registered voters gave Sander a "written testimonial of his integrity and goodwill."

In Derry, the local Baptist and Catholic Church were strictly opposed to euthanasia. They based their arguments on the scriptural command that "Thou shall not kill." It may be supposed that most of the other Derry pastors were also in favor of Sander being found guilty.

The first clergyman in the greater Manchester area to come out in public support of Sander was Rev. Dr. Charles S. Milligan of East Derry's First Parish Church. To make sure everyone knew his views, he announced a week before, the topic of his next sermon. That Sunday, the sanctuary of the church was filled to overflowing.

Pastor Milligan began his sermon with the declaration that "I believe God does not enjoy human suffering. I question that those who don't want it (euthanasia) have the right to deny it to those who do." He went on to say that doctors have been performing mercy killing for millennia but it has always been hidden. If euthanasia was made legal then it can be regulated for only extreme cases of suffering. He concluded by saying that now "only the honest doctor gets punished."

On March 9, 1950, the jury took just 71 minutes to find Herman Sander not guilty on the all charges. Today this verdict is viewed by many as being an example of jury nullification — a guilty man had been set free because the 12 men and women in the jury room didn't believe in the law against mercy killing.

Despite being found not guilty, the state refused to give Sander back his medical license. He could no longer practice medicine in New Hampshire. To support his wife and three daughters, the doctor was forced to work as a farm hand. In time, the New Hampshire Medical Board did give him back his license. He retired in 1974 after 33 years as a physician. He spent his remaining years as a beekeeper in Candia. In 1979, Candia honored him as "the most influential individual in town." Sander died in 1996 at a Manchester nursing home at 87 years of age.
The case of Carol Ann Paight occurred around the same time. As reported by Australian Associated Press and published in the Adelaide News, February 2, 1950 (bold, capitals in original):

U.S. GIRL KILLER "WAS INSANE"

New York, Wednesday.

--A psychiatrist today testified that Carol Paight was insane when she fired the fatal "mercy" bullet at her father.


He said she had not recovered her sanity nearly three weeks later.

Carol, 21, killed her father in hospital after learning he had incurable cancer. She is charged with second-degree murder.

Dr. Clifford Moore, medical director of a mental institution, was called as a witness after the girl's mother had given evidence that there had been in sanity both in her family and her late husband's.

Dr. Moore said Carol was insane when he examined her 19 days after the shooting. He didn't know whether she had recovered yet.
As reported by Mara Bovsun in the New York Daily News, June 19, 2010 (updated April 9, 2018):

If one thing was clear in this sad case, it was that Carol Ann Paight loved her father. She loved him so much that she could not bear to see him suffer. So she killed him.

Her father, Police Sgt. Carl Paight, 52, was a good-natured family man, adored by his wife, Mary, 52 and children, Carol, 21, and Carl, Jr., 22, both college students. They lived in a modest home in Stamford, Conn.

By all accounts, Sgt. Paight was the kind of dad every child deserves – responsible, good to their mother, and fun. The family spent hours swimming and sailing, and even chores were enjoyable when he was around.

It all came to a crashing end in September 1949. Sgt. Paight had not been feeling well, so he checked into a Stamford hospital. The doctors recommended exploratory surgery, scheduled for the 23rd.

During the operation, Carol and her mother, both devote Roman Catholics, went to church to pray.

Their prayers went unanswered. Back at the hospital, Dr. William E. Smith gave them the worst possible news. Sgt. Paight’s body was “riddled” with cancer, and he had, at most, three months to live.

Carol knew what that meant. Two of her aunts, Agnes and Alice, had died of cancer, and she witnessed these vibrant women shrivel away in agony. The experience had instilled in her a deep terror of the disease.

“Don’t tell Daddy!” Carol screamed when Dr. Smith delivered the news. Then she grew glassy-eyed and pale, and started babbling. Carol didn’t appear to hear anything, and seemed to be in a world of her own.

The Paight women returned home, but Carol didn’t stay. She swiped her father’s service revolver, and headed back to the hospital, stopping briefly at a spot in the woods to take one practice shot.

With the gun wrapped in a jacket, she returned to her father. Moments later, nurses heard an odd noise, like a tray dropping, and saw the tall, blond girl in the doorway of Paight’s room. Inside, they found the gun on the bed, and a bullet wound in the patient’s head.

“I shot him,” Carol told them. Then she became hysterical.

Later, as members of her late father’s squad guarded her, she seemed calm and detached. At around 8:30 p.m., she told Capt. William J. Lynch that she didn’t care what people thought or what would happen to her. She couldn’t stand to see her dad suffer.

The girl remembered nothing the next morning. She recalled hearing the doctor’s dreaded words, but after that, everything was a blank.

From the start, sympathy was with the girl. Civic leaders and businesses took up a collection for her defense. “It is my honest belief and firm conviction that the case of Carol Paight deserves extreme sympathy and leniency,” Stamford Mayor George Barrett told reporters.

Nevertheless, the district attorney had no choice but to arrest Paight, charging her with second-degree murder. It carried a life sentence.

The girl’s plight ignited a long-smoldering debate over mercy killing. In the 1930s, two groups were building a movement around the right to die – England’s Euthanasia Legalization society, and the Euthanasia Society of America. Both groups took keen interest in the case.

By the time Paight’s trial opened on Jan. 23, 1950, two more mercy killings were grabbing headlines. A New Hampshire doctor, Hermann Sander, had been arrested for injecting air into the veins of a dying cancer patient. In Ontario, Can., engineer Ralph Kilbon’s mentally ill wife had tried to kill herself with a bullet to the abdomen. When Kilbon found her, she was dying and in pain, so he shot her to finish what she started.

In Paight’s trial, everything hinged on the girl’s state of mind at the time of the killing, a period that Carol could not remember.

Witnesses swore that she certainly looked insane, swinging from shrieks and sobs to periods of calm, glassy-eyed detachment. Psychiatric experts for the defense said the news about her father had caused temporary insanity, and pushed her into a “fugue state” in which her subconscious mind controlled her actions.

The outcome was not hard to predict when the prosecution’s expert witness was booed for voicing the opinion that the defendant had been sane, and knew exactly what she was doing when she pulled the trigger.

Also helpful was the composition of the jury. It was made up entirely of parents – mothers and fathers with children about the same age as the accused.

After about four hours’ deliberation, the jury found her not guilty. Carol went home, and got on with her life. By September, a year after her father’s death, she had some good news, a wedding. “Carol Paight, the schoolgirl who was acquitted of the mercy-slaying of her cop-pop … is blessed eventing,” wrote legendary gossip columnist Walter Winchell a few months later.

The president of the Euthanasia Society said Paight’s acquittal was a “vindication” of his group. Ministers came out in support of mercy killings, and physicians went on record saying that they had, on occasion, made lethal doses of morphine available to the incurably ill.

For a time, it seemed as if Paight’s story might open a floodgate of mercy killings, especially after the two other high-profile cases ended in acquittals.

But the tide turned. In November 1952, another woman, Lois Curtiss, 33, stood in the same courthouse as Paight. Curtiss was accused of murdering her cancer-ridden father by turning on the gas jets in their apartment, an act that left her partially paralyzed. She said she had been motivated by love, and her only goal was to end his suffering. But the judge saw this death as “one of those killings which dramatists and sob sisters call a mercy killing” and sent her to prison.
Carol Ann Paight (center) is comforted by her brother Carl, Jr., and her mother, Mary Nolan Paight, during the Paight trial in Bridgeport, Conn. (Photo by Walter Kelleher/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)

In both the cases mentioned above as well as the notorious Canadian case of R v Latimer (1997, 2001), I'm struck by the willingness of so many people to believe that the killing was motivated by love. Who says the killer was motivated by love? The killer. Robert Latimer was a farmer in Saskatchewan whose 12-year-old daughter Tracy had severe cerebral palsy and was in constant pain, which may have been eased by surgery. Mr. Latimer murdered Tracy while the rest of the family was at church, but claimed that she had died in her sleep. Police became suspicious when an autopsy revealed high amounts of carbon monoxide in Tracy's blood, and only then did he admit that he had killed her by connecting a hose from the exhaust pipe to the cab. Mr. Latimer was charged with first-degree murder, was convicted of second-degree murder, and served almost 10 years in prison before being granted full parole in December 2010.

It disturbed me then, as it does now, that an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted in 1999 found that 73% of those responding (it should be kept in mind that Ipsos-Reid admits, but doesn't publicize, that 70% of the people they contact refuse to talk to them) believed that Mr. Latimer acted out of compassion, and 41%--a plurality--believed "mercy killing" shouldn't even be against the law. It doesn't help that the media focus on the instances in which killing has taken place rather than those in which people in positions such as Mr. Latimer don't kill their loved ones. A former pastor of mine and his wife are parents of a son with multiple disabilities that require round-the-clock care. His parents aren't trained caregivers, aren't wealthy, have to work for a living, and have other children to take care of as part of living their lives. They found an institution in which their disabled son could receive the care he requires, and had him placed there. The institution is hundreds of miles and several provinces away from the parents, but they visit him several times a year, and the last I heard, reported that he was receiving excellent care. This is far from an ideal situation, but in a fallen world, this was the best choice they could make. Unfortunately, this example of true Christian compassion seldom gets any press.

Unfortunately, Canadian society has deteriorated so far and so fast since the Latimer case that he wouldn't even be charged today. Under the Orwellian-named MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying), introduced by the "Liberal" regime of Justin Trudeau in 2016, MAiD deaths have increased from 5,665 in 2019 to 15,343 in 2023, making it the fastest-growing such program in the world. Very few of these people are dying; rather, they're people who have problems in living, and a disproportionately high percentage are poor. This is exactly the way it happened in Germany in the 1920s and '30s, culminating in mass murder and genocide during World War II. My father fought against the regime that did that; I'm glad he's not around to see what became of the country he fought for.

Friday, 31 July 2020

Physician-assisted suicide in Canada doubled from 2017-2019

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

I find it difficult to understand why today's residents of what were the Allied nations in World War II still regard the Nazis as villains when those nations are increasingly adopting the Nazis' policies. To regurgitate what I said in a previous post: It comes as no surprise to this blogger to see the rabidly antichrist Trudeaupian Canadian government of the Manchurian Pothead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fulfilling my prediction that the slippery slope argument will prove correct in Trudeaupia Canada as it did in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s, with the legalization of euthanasia eventually leading to widespread killing. Doctor-assisted death is rapidly morphing into doctor-initiated death.

As reported by Christine Rousselle of Catholic News Agency, July 30, 2020 (link in original):

Washington, D.C. Newsroom - The number of Canadians killed by physician-assisted suicide nearly doubled between 2017 and 2019, according to a report released by the Canadian government. More than a third of those who opted for “medical assistance in dying” cited concerns of being a burden to family or carers.

The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2019” was published in July. It follows a series of interim reports that were published over the last year.

In 2019, a total of 5,631 Canadians ended their lives through the country’s “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or “MAID” protocols. This amounts for 2% of the total deaths in Canada, an increase from 2018’s percentage. In 2018, the number of MAID deaths accounted for 1.12% of the total number of deaths in Canada.

The report found that cancer was the most common condition among those who ended their lives with MAID, followed by respiratory conditions and neurological ailments. Slightly over two thirds of those who used MAID had cancer as an underlying condition.

Along with having a “reasonably foreseeable” natural death, a person who wished to receive MAID also had to show that their condition was causing them “enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved in a manner that they find acceptable.”

In just over a third of 2019’s MAID deaths, a “perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers” was one of the reasons cited, and in 13.7% of cases, “isolation or loneliness” was a factor.

“When asked to describe the nature of the suffering prompting their request, patients most often reported ‘a loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities’ followed by ‘loss of ability to perform activities of daily living’ reported in 82.1% and 78.1% of cases, respectively,” says the report.

“Inadequate control of pain” was cited in 53.9% of cases, followed by “loss of dignity” in 53.3% of cases.

In U.S. states with legal physician-assisted suicide, less than one half of one percent of deaths are due to euthanasia, the lowest rate in the world. If Canada’s numbers were extrapolated to the United States, approximately 50,000 people each year would end their lives with MAID. This would put euthanasia in the top 10 causes of death for the United States, just above “intentional self-harm (suicide)” and just below kidney disease.

Countries that permit physicians to administer euthanasia and do not mandate self-administration have higher percentages of deaths from euthanasia. Similar to countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, Canadian law permits doctors to administer the lethal dose of medication to the patients. In the United States, the drugs must be self-administered.

While Canadians have the option to self-administer the drugs, the number of people who chose to do so last year was “fewer than seven.”

In 2019, the average age of a person who received MAID in Canada was 75.2 years, but 103 people between the ages of 18 and 45 received MAID.

Last year, 92.2% of requests for MAID were approved, out of a total of 7,336 applications.

Only 3.6% of people who were deemed eligible for MAID withdrew their request.

Of those who were deemed ineligible for MAID in 2019, about a quarter were denied because death was “reasonably foreseeable,” and an additional quarter were denied due to not being “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” Those requirements are likely to change for future years.

In September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found that the requirement that a person who receives MAID have a “reasonably foreseeable natural death” was unconstitutional. The Canadian government later announced that they do not intend on appealing this decision, and a piece of legislation titled Bill C-7 was introduced in February 2020 to further expand MAID criteria.

In addition to removing the requirement of a reasonably foreseeable death, Bill C-7 would also allow for advanced directives.

Cardinal Thomas Collins, the Archbishop of Toronto, released a statement in February criticizing Bill C-7 for expanding the criteria for MAID without expanding the availability of palliative care.

“Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30% of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues,” said Collins.

“If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. But instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand,” adding that doctors will be forced to comply with requests for euthanasia as Canada does not have conscience rights protections for medical professionals.

“We should take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community,” said Collins.

“Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case — there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.”
See also my previous posts:

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down ban on assisted suicide (February 6, 2015)

Canada's largest children's hospital drafts policy that could allow for the euthanasia of children (October 11, 2018)

Canada's antichrist Liberal government plans to study reports on expanding euthanasia (December 23, 2018)

Sunday, 26 April 2020

Dutch Supreme Court permits euthanasia of dementia patients

It comes as no surprise to this blogger that the slippery slope is getting slipperier; as reported by Christine Rousselle of Catholic News Agency, April 22, 2020:

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled on Tuesday, April 21, that it is lawful for doctors to euthanize patients with severe dementia, provided that the patient had expressed a desire to be euthanized while still legally capable of doing so.

Lower courts had previously ruled that a doctor had not acted improperly when he euthanized a 74-year-old woman with advanced dementia, even though the woman had to be repeatedly sedated and physically restrained during the procedure. The case was sent to the Supreme Court for further clarification of the country’s euthanasia law, which permits doctors to kill patients considered to be in “unbearable suffering.”

Per Dutch law, euthanasia is only legal for those with dementia if they had written or discussed an advanced directive with their doctor.

“For some people, the prospect of ever suffering from dementia may be sufficient reason to make an advance directive (living will). This can either be drawn up independently or discussed first with the family doctor. A physician can perform euthanasia on a patient with dementia only if such a directive exists, if statutory care is taken and if, in his opinion, the patient is experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement,” says the Dutch government’s website.

The woman who resisted her euthanization had written an advanced directive four years prior, requesting the procedure in lieu of being put in a nursing home. In the directive, she had said she wished to “be able to decide while still in my senses and when I think the time is right.”

Prosecutors argued that her attempt to fight off the doctor indicated that she could have changed her mind, but was unable to verbally communicate.

Dr. Charles Camosy, a professor at Fordham University and bioethicist, told CNA that the supreme court decision is part of a legal “slippery slope” in the Netherlands on euthanasia. Camosy said that patients with conditions including mental deterioration will be at the heart of future debate.

“I believe the next great fight over fundamental human equality will be over the value of human beings with advanced dementia,” he said. “It is impossible, in my view, to separate what is happening in the Netherlands from the broad rejection in the post-Christian West of fundamental human equality.”

A person with advanced dementia or a severe brain injury, Camosy said, is unable to communicate consent to be euthanized, meaning that the doctor performing the euthanasia will be likely the one to decide if the patient is in severe enough suffering to merit death.

“Doctors are notoriously bad at judging these things,” said Camosy. “Study after study finds that they rate the quality of life of their patients worse than the patients do themselves. They assume people want more quality of life than length of life, when in fact the numbers show exactly the opposite.”

Camosy told CNA that given how the Netherlands has euthanized newborn infants, who are also unable to communicate a degree of suffering, for about two decades, “it follows logically that they could say it about someone with late-stage dementia.”

“Like prenatal human beings, and human beings with massive brain injuries, human beings with late-stage dementia simply don’t ‘count,’ morally speaking, the same as human beings that have been determined to have the traits that make someone a person,” he said.

Instead of further expanding euthanasia, Camosy suggested that the Netherlands instead ramp up the number of caregivers for dementia patients, and work to empower families of dementia patients to provide care for them.
See also my posts:

The latest from the Netherlands: Euthanasia house calls (December 17, 2011)

Dutch authorities prosecute doctor for performing involuntary euthanasia on elderly woman (November 18, 2018)

Thursday, 20 February 2020

Socialist-dominated Portuguese Parliament defies protests and votes to legalize euthanasia

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

Another example of caring and compassionate Socialists, as reported by Morgan Phillips of Fox News, February 20, 2020:

Portuguese lawmakers voted Thursday to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill people amid protests outside the parliament building.

The vote may add Portugal to the short list of countries that allow such practices, though the country’s conservative president could veto the legislation, sending it back to parliament.


Lawmakers in the 230-seat parliament stated their vote one by one on a series of five proposals -- instead of voting electronically -- a method only used for landmark legislation. Each bill passed by a margin of 28 and 41 votes.

In a similar debate two years ago, lawmakers rejected euthanasia by two votes.

Euthanasia — when a doctor directly administers fatal drugs to a patient — is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Physician-assisted suicide — where patients administer the lethal drug themselves, under medical supervision — is allowed in a number of U.S. states.

All five bills require that a qualifying patient be over 18 years and not suffering from a mental illness, as well as suffering from “unbearable” pain “without a hope for a cure.”

The country’s governing Socialist Party previously spearheaded efforts to legalize abortion in 2007.

A Socialist lawmaker called those against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide “radical” during debates.


Monday, 30 September 2019

Italy's constitutional court rules in favour of assisted death in cases of irreversible condition and "intolerable" pain

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

The pro-death attitude of the world--especially that of the post-Christian and anti-Christian West--continues apace, as reported by Nick Squires of the London Daily Telegraph, September 26, 2019:

Euthanasia is justified in cases where a person is suffering from an irreversible condition and “intolerable” pain, Italy’s constitutional court has ruled in a landmark decision.

The court said that, in certain circumstances, anyone who "facilitates the suicidal intention... of a patient kept alive by life-support treatments and suffering from an irreversible pathology" should not be punished.

The ruling was strongly criticised by the Catholic Church but applauded by right-to-die activists and some politicians.

In its judgment, the court said that assisted dying should be allowed if a patient had an irreversible condition which caused him or her severe physical and psychological suffering.

The court made the decision after considering the case of Marco Cappato, a right-to-die activist who was accused of assisting the suicide of a 40-year-old DJ who was left a tetraplegic after a horrific car accident in 2014.

Fabiano Antoniani, better known as DJ Fabo, took his own life at a Swiss euthanasia clinic in 2017.

He had been left profoundly disabled by the crash, as well as blind and in need of assistance to eat and breath.

Mr Cappato welcomed the ruling, saying that “as of today, all of us in Italy are freer.”

In a trial in Milan, he was facing up to 12 years in jail for "instigating or assisting suicide" but is now likely to be acquitted.

The DJ’s former girlfriend also hailed the court’s judgment, saying that it meant his suffering had not been for nothing.

"Fabo's body had become a cage and he lived in that prison for two years and nine months. If a person in these conditions dreams of dying at home, I find it profoundly unfair that someone else should say no,” said Valeria Imbrogno.

But the Italian Bishops’ Conference called the judgment a “grave decision” which violated the sanctity of life.

“I don’t understand how you can talk of freedom. This is creating the preconditions for a culture of death,” said Monsignor Stefano Russo, the secretary general of the Catholic body.

The court’s decision divided politics. It was supported by members of the centre-Left Democratic Party, who together with the populist Five Star Movement formed a new coalition last month.

Andrea Marcucci, a Democrat senator, said the “ping pong” debate that had gone on for years between society and the Catholic Church should now be laid to rest, and called on parliament to pass a new law.

But Matteo Salvini, the leader of the hard-Right League who was interior minister and deputy prime minister until his coalition with Five Star imploded last month, said he would never agree to "suicide by law".

Simone Pillon, a senator from the League, was highly critical of the judgment, saying that patients should be given all possible palliative care but should not be allowed to end their own lives. “Human life is sacred and inviolable,” he said. The decision of the court’s judges would “weigh on their consciences for life,” he said.

An association of Catholic doctors said they would not abide by the court’s decision and would fight "a slide towards euthanasia and a violation of our professional code".

Wednesday, 24 July 2019

50 years ago: Organ transplant doctors redefine death

While the world--including this blogger--was thrilled by the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969, an event of arguably greater significance--literally a matter of life and death--took place in Madrid. As reported by the British newspaper The Guardian, July 19, 1969:

Madrid, July 18--Organ transplant specialists from around the world have reached agreement here on a new definition of death.

Delegates to the first international transplant symposium in Madrid agreed to define death as the moment when the brain ceases to perform its vital functions and fails to react to medical stimuli.

The conclusion, announced today after last night's closing session, was far from unanimous, but it is expected to form the basis for new legislation in many countries.

The doctors rejected the proposal of defining death as the moment when the heart stops beating, because they felt a heart should be in good working order for a successful transplant.

The medical panel's recommendation that death be defined in neurological terms was approved in a heated debate in the final session. Other conditions imposed by the doctors were that the doctor signing the death certificate should not form a part of the team involved in a transplant operation and that the dead or moribund patient should not be capable of breathing without the help of medical devices.

The consensus of the symposium was that the failure of the brain to react and the cessation of vital brain activity should be irreparable, with the absence of any clinical reaction to customary medical tests.

The panel advised, however, that a final decision on death should be made only on the recommendation of qualified experts after they had conducted a series of internationally approved medical tests, including the electro-encephalograph.

They further warned that such tests should be carried out on a potential donor over a minimum of 24 hours.

The surgeons warned that the criteria should be applied only with considerable reservation in the case of children and that they were not applicable in cases involving drugs.
This conference took place less than 20 months after the first successful human heart transplant. Physicians had previously been hesitant to perform heart transplants, because under the definition of death which had long been in place--cessation of the heartbeat--performing a heart transplant necessarily meant involved removing the heart from a living person, thus killing the donor. In order for surgeons to perform heart transplants without killing people--and to have a heart that was in good working order--it was necessary to define death as being something other than cessation of the heartbeat, thus redefining the donor as dead.

It's worth noting that the adoption of the definition of death as cessation of brain function and reaction was "far from unanimous," and was "approved in a heated debate." This indicates that the definition of death as "brain death" was not obvious, and was more political than scientific, created to salve the consciences of doctors.

Thursday, 31 January 2019

New York hospital withdraws man's life support after woman misidentifies him as her brother

Another exciting episode in 21st century medical ethics; as reported by Priscilla DeGregory and Georgett Roberts of the New York Post, January 27, 2019:

They were switched at death.

A horrific hospital mix-up left a Brooklyn woman grieving for nine days at the bedside of a brain-damaged man who doctors insisted was her brother — but who was actually a stranger with the same name, a new lawsuit charges.

But only after she gave consent to have her “brother” taken off life support at St. Barnabas Hospital did Shirell Powell learn the shocking truth: Her real sibling was in jail — and she had just sent a stranger to his death, her Bronx Supreme Court lawsuit says.

“I nearly fainted because I killed somebody that I didn’t even know. I gave consent,” said Powell, 48, of Crown Heights.

“I was like, ‘Where is my brother? What is going on?’ I was devastated.”

The saga began July 15, when Freddy Clarence Williams, 40, was admitted to the Bronx hospital, unconscious from an apparent drug overdose, according to Powell’s lawsuit.

Williams had his Social Security card on him, and it identified him by that name, the court papers say.

But the hospital phoned Powell anyway, telling her that her brother, Frederick Williams, who also is 40 but has no middle name, had been admitted and was near death.

She rushed to the man’s bedside.

“He had tubes in his mouth, a neck brace,’’ Powell told The Post. “He was a little swollen . . . [But] he resembled my brother so much.

“He couldn’t speak from the time they brought him in the hospital. They just assumed it was my brother.”

After two days of tests, St. Barnabas doctors told her that her “brother” was brain-dead, she said.

“That is my baby brother, so it was really hurtful,” she said. “I was worried, hurt, crying, screaming, calling everybody. It was a horrible feeling.”

With no cause to hope for his recovery, she contacted relatives down South, telling them to come and say their goodbyes.

Powell acknowledged that the first time her sister saw the ailing man in the hospital, she questioned whether he was their sibling.

“She walked up into the room and said, ‘That is not my brother,’ ” Powell recalled. “I said, ‘What do you mean?’ ”

“The guy was much bigger,’’ Powell explained.

But he appeared swollen, and “the eyebrows, the nose, the structure — it looked like [our] brother,” Powell said. “My sister, she walked up closer, and you could see the resemblance, and she was like, ‘Oh, OK.’ ”

So on July 29, with her uncle and sister at her side, Powell “authorized [the hospital] to withdraw life support from Frederick Williams,” the lawsuit says.

“It was very devastating,” she recalled. “I was crying.”

Frederick Williams’ “death” was even harder on his two daughters — Brooklyn, 17, and Star, 18, their aunt said.

The teens live in Virginia, and Brooklyn came to the city to say goodbye to her father before he was taken off life support, Powell said.

“She was hysterical,” Powell recalled. “She was holding his hand, kissing him, crying.”

Only after an autopsy did the city Medical Examiner’s Office reveal the truth: The dead man was Freddy Clarence Williams.

Powell said they got a call from a worker at the agency as they were making funeral arrangements.

“She called us just in time,” Powell said. “We would have been burying someone else.”

Meanwhile, it turned out Powell’s actual brother was in jail on a July 1 assault arrest in lower Manhattan.

Powell went to Manhattan Supreme Court for her sibling’s next hearing a few weeks later — just to lay eyes on him.

“I saw my brother,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. I was very relieved.”

She also called him on the phone at Rikers Island. They had quite a conversation about her decision to pull his plug.

“He was saying, ‘You were going to kill me?’ I explained to him, once you’re brain-dead, there is nothing to do.”

Interviewed at Rikers, Powell’s brother said he had forgiven his sister for pulling the plug on the man she thought was him.

“The doctors told her they couldn’t do anything,” he said. “I’m not mad at her.”

Still, he raged, “How could the hospital do something like that? Look what they put my family through.”

Powell’s lawyer, Alexander M. Dudelson, told The Post that he tried to get information about Freddy Clarence Williams, the stranger who died surrounded by Powell’s sobbing family.

“The representatives [at St. Barnabas] basically spit in my face,” he said. “This is beyond reckless conduct. I requested an investigation. Nothing more. An apology would have been nice.”

Asked about the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, hospital spokesman Steven Clark responded, “We don’t feel there is any merit to this claim.”

Powell also asked the ME’s Office for the dead man’s family information so she could send condolences, but it denied the request, citing privacy concerns.

Now, Powell says, she remains haunted by questions: The man she had grieved for at the hospital — who was he? Does he have family?

“I barely sleep thinking about this all the time,’’ she said.

“To actually stand over him and watch this man take his last breath — sometimes I can’t even talk about it because I get upset and start crying.

“On the one hand, I’m thankful that it wasn’t [my brother]. On the other hand, I killed somebody that was a dad or a brother.”

Wednesday, 30 January 2019

Belgian doctors face prosecution for euthanizing autistic woman

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

It comes as no surprise to this blogger that the categories of people deemed eligible for euthanasia are becoming broader, and that countries which fought the Nazis during World War II are increasingly adopting the Nazis' policies. Even if the doctors in this case are convicted, it will just be a matter of time until killing of such people becomes legal. As reported by Lia Eustachewich of the New York Post, November 27, 2018:

A woman with autism may have been improperly euthanized by doctors in Belgium who had her parents hold the needle in place while the deadly injection was administered, according to prosecutors.

The trio of doctors will face trial in the 2010 death of Tine Nys, a 38-year-old woman who was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome two months before her death at the hands of a doctor.

The East Flanders physicians are accused of poisoning Nys before she died, as well as botching parts of the procedure.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, it is legal for doctors to euthanize patients who have psychiatric problems that cause “unbearable and untreatable” suffering. Among Belgians put to death for mental health reasons, the most common conditions are depression, personality disorder and Asperger’s, a mild form of autism.

The legitimacy of the controversial practice, however, is hotly debated.

Nys’ family filed a criminal complaint last year alleging numerous “irregularities” in her death, as her doctors tried to thwart the investigation, the Associated Press reported.

“We must try to stop these people,” wrote Dr. Lieve Thienpont, the psychiatrist who approved Nys’ request to die and one of three doctors now facing charges. “It is a seriously dysfunctional, wounded, traumatized family with very little empathy and respect for others.”

One of the doctors asked Nys’ parents to hold the needle in place as he administered the fatal injection — and then asked the family to use a stethoscope to confirm her heart had stopped, one of the victim’s sisters, Sophie Nys, told the AP.

Concerns have been previously raised that Thienpont may have too readily approved euthanasia requests for mentally ill patients.

Thienpont and Dr. Wim Distelmans, head of Belgium’s euthanasia review commission, have come to blows before. Distelmans has said the doctor and colleagues may have failed to meet certain legal requirements before performing euthanasia. He also wrote that he’d no longer accept patients referred from Thienpont.

Since euthanasia was approved in Belgium in 2002, more than 10,000 people have been killed. Only one case has been referred to prosecutors but was later dropped.

The three doctors in Nys’ case have been referred to the Court of Assize in Ghent and will face trial “due to poisoning,” said prosecutor Francis Clarysse.
See also my posts:

Pope Francis orders Roman Catholic charity in Belgium to stop performing euthanasia in its psychiatric hospitals (August 13, 2017)

Belgium now euthanizes children as young as 7 (August 11, 2018)

Sunday, 23 December 2018

Canada's antichrist Liberal government plans to study reports on expanding euthanasia

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; Jeremiah 22:13a

It comes as no surprise to this blogger to see the rabidly antichrist Trudeaupian Canadian government of the Manchurian Pothead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fulfilling my prediction that the slippery slope argument will prove correct in Trudeaupia Canada as it did in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s, with the legalization of euthanasia eventually leading to widespread killing. Doctor-assisted death is rapidly morphing into doctor-initiated death. As reported by Deborah Gyapong of Catholic News Service, December 18, 2018 (links in original):

OTTAWA – The Liberal government has promised to study three new reports on the possible expansion of the euthanasia law to include minors and those who suffer from mental disorders, but advocacy groups warn the government will likely expand the law after the 2019 election.

“My position is the Liberals do plan to expand the euthanasia law and Dying with Dignity is pressuring hard on the issue of advanced requests,” said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. “I also see them expanding it to children.”

The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) submitted three separate reports in mid-December that studied whether to expand access to assisted suicide for “mature minors,” for those who had made advance requests for euthanasia should they become incompetent, and for those who suffer from mental disorders with no underlying physical condition that would make their death reasonably foreseeable.

“The results of these three independent reviews will help to inform dialogue on the issue of medical assistance in dying among Canadians and decision-makers,” said Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who tabled the CCA reports in the House of Commons Dec. 12, in a joint statement with Health Minister Ginette Pettipas Taylor. “Given the complexity and sensitivity of these topics, it will be important to take the time necessary to consider the evidence presented in the CCA’s reports.”

“It seems like they are trying to walk the line, just sort of put out the information and not really take the position,” said Amy Hasbrouck, a disability rights expert who heads Toujours Vivant/Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled community.

Hasbrouck noted Quebec’s new government has indicated it will expand the province’s law to include advanced directives. As well, there is ongoing litigation at the federal and provincial level that would “dispense with the idea you have to be at end of life for death to be reasonably foreseeable,” she said.

There is also pressure for euthanasia of children, “oddly enough coming from the parents of children with disabilities,” she said, referring to a study done by the Canadian Pediatrics Society that showed most requests for the euthanasia of children under 17 came from the parents not from the children themselves.

Hasbrouck expressed disappointment there was not more representation on the CCA panel from the disabled community. Toujours Vivant was the only one to come from the disabled community. First Nations perspectives were also missing.

Schadenberg said he is glad the CCA reports were not consensus reports, but reflected the wide divergence of opinion on the various questions.

The CCA report offered pro and con arguments for child euthanasia, with no clear direction, says Schadenberg.

The CCA report on euthanasia for those with mental disorders alone also featured pro and con arguments, acknowledging the contentious nature of the issue, but warned if Canada were to allow it, based on the current “subjective assessment” of intolerable suffering, “it could become the most permissive jurisdiction in the world with respect to how relief of suffering is evaluated.”

“On the issue of mental illness, I can see them hesitating on that one,” Schadenberg said, noting that in order to allow it, the law would have to remove the section of the law that says death must be “reasonably foreseeable.”

But like Hasbrouck, Schadenberg is concerned expansion of the law could come through the courts.

The safeguard of “reasonably foreseeable” is already under challenge in the courts, he said, though the Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to speed up the case of Julia Lamb, a B.C. woman with spinal muscular atrophy who is not terminally ill, yet wants the ability access assisted suicide.
It also comes as no surprise to this blogger that Trudeaupia's Canada's most secular province, which was less than enthusiastic about fighting the Nazis during World War II, is already doing its best to implement Nazi policies, as reported by LifeSite News, December 12, 2018 (links in original):

Sick patients in Quebec are sometimes “abruptly” killed by doctors through the province’s euthanasia program with little or no effort to mitigate or relieve the patient’s suffering through non-lethal medical means, a study in an international medical journal is claiming.

“Requests for and provision of MAiD [Medical Aid in Dying] as documented in the chart can occur abruptly and without a documented evolution of the goals of care which may imply that requests for MAiD are not treated as having particular moral considerations but merely administrative or legal ones,” the study titled “Situating requests for medical aid in dying within the broader context of end-of-life care: ethical considerations” states.

“If MAiD is not ethically distinct from other end-of-life practices, then the timing would not appear to add any additional ethical concerns to those already expressed in relation to late discussion of end-of-life care options in general. If, however, MAiD is ethically distinct and should be treated with special consideration, the tendency to avoid, delay or have inadequate conversations about end-of-life care may be especially troubling in the context of their unknown impact on requests for assisted death,” the study added.

The study was published last month in the Journal of Medical Ethics

A leading bioethicist says the study shows the speciousness of claims by euthanasia advocates that ending a sick person’s life would only be done when nothing else can relieve the suffering.

“Euthanasia advocates are so full of it, promising that snuff medicine will only be a last resort when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. It’s never been true,” Wesley J. Smith wrote in a Dec. 10 article in National Review.

Smith said that once euthanasia is “normalized,” the next logical step is for it to simply become a “banal bureaucratic” process.

“And what else should we expect?” he asked. “Harnessing the authority of doctors in support of homicide transforms the act into a perceived beneficence, which quickly erodes the perceived intrinsic value of human life.”

“Over time,” Smith added, “euthanasia practice becomes a banal bureaucratic matter of checking the right boxes or finding ways to maneuver around the ‘protective guidelines’ — now perceived as ‘obstacles,’” he added.

“Humans are a logical species. Once we adopt a principle — here, that killing is an acceptable way to defeat suffering — we take the road wherever it leads,” he concluded.

Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, with a reported 2,000 deaths by assisted suicide in the first year, more than were expected. The numbers since have soared with an at least 30-percent increase.

The government has also since pushed euthanasia through advertisements in hospital waiting rooms.

Two Canadian doctors and a bioethicist argued in the September edition of the New England Journal of Medicine for taking of organs from people who have chosen to end their lives through euthanasia while they are still alive.

This past fall it was reported that the Canadian government is now considering euthanasia for citizens suffering with mental illness, those who wish to produce an advanced directive and euthanasia for children.
It doesn't take much imagination to envision belief in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ being classified as a "mental disorder" requiring pre-emptive euthanasia. Many years ago, I thought that the Antichrist would have to do a fair amount to get people to follow him and do his will, but I was wrong; by the time his identity is revealed, he won't have much to do to achieve his goals, since so much work is being done in advance to prepare the world for him.

Friday, 14 December 2018

Ontario Court of Appeal hears case on whether woman on life support is alive or dead

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; Jeremiah 22:13a

As reported by Lorenda Reddekopp of CBC News, December 12, 2018 (link inserted by blogger):

The family of Taquisha McKitty will argue in the Ontario Court of Appeal Wednesday that she's still breathing and alive, even though a lower court has declared her dead.

"We're not convinced that she's dead," said Bishop Wendell Brereton from his church, the Breakthrough Temple in Brampton.

He has visited McKitty in hospital and witnessed her movements.

"Legs, arms. From head to toe she's moving," he said.

"So, it's not a corpse lying there. It's a person."

McKitty was declared dead by doctors more than a year ago after she went into cardiac arrest following a drug overdose and was put on life support.

McKitty's lawyer will argue in appeal court in Toronto that an Ontario Superior Court judge erred in not recognizing McKitty's charter rights, and not taking into account her religious beliefs in a case that could prove precedent-setting.

"Taquisha is alive according to her own religious beliefs," lawyer Hugh Scher writes in a court factum.

He adds that some jurisdictions do take religious beliefs into account before declaring someone dead.

"Taquisha remains alive in Nova Scotia, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere, but according to [Ontario Superior Court] is dead in Ontario."

Erica Baron, the lawyer representing Dr. Omar Hayani, who first declared McKitty dead at Brampton Civic Hospital, argues Scher is misinterpreting Nova Scotia law, and that McKitty would be considered dead everywhere in Canada.

In her legal arguments, Baron writes that because of the family's doubts regarding McKitty's movements, further neurological tests were done.

"These movements are not brain based," she wrote.

"If mechanical ventilation was discontinued, her heart would cease beating very quickly."

Bio-ethicist Kerry Bowman from the University of Toronto raised a number of questions about the issue.

"Who decides whether you're dead or not?" he asked in a phone interview, adding that as a whole, western societies are more focused on brain activity as an indicator of life than eastern societies.

"Can a doctor say, 'You're dead,' irrespective of what your family and your religion believes to be dead?"

He believes the courts need to clearly rule on what constitutes death.

In another Ontario case, the family of an Orthodox Jewish man declared brain dead also disputed the finding and went to the courts.

In that case, though, 25-year-old Shalom Ouanounou's heart later stopped beating and a Jewish doctor declared him dead.

The judge in that case then declared the case moot.

Bowman says one uncomfortable part of this issue that can't be ignored is money and the cost of keeping people on life support indefinitely who show no brain activity.

"I'm not saying we should make resource allocation decisions at the bedside, to say, 'This loved one of yours is not worth money.'"

But Bowman does say the courts may need to decide the line between life and death.

In the McKitty case, the Ontario Court of Appeal may not be the end.

Brereton says the church is determined to have the issue heard by the Supreme Court of Canada if the appeal decision is not in their favour.
The fact that someone in Ms. McKitty's condition can be considered alive in some places and not in others shows how imprecise the definition of death actually is. The definition of death as "brain death" goes back only 50 years; it was devised in order to salve the consciences of doctors who were starting to perform heart transplants, who were removing hearts from donors who were still alive according to the definition then in place. December 4 marked the 50th anniversary of the American Medical Association's adoption of heart transplant guidelines (one year and one day after the world's first heart transplant was performed in South Africa), which stipulated that a person's death had to be declared "irreversible" by at least two doctors not connected with the surgical team before his heart could be transplanted, with the best definition of death being based on "irreversible brain death." I intend to do a more detailed post on this subject next year, God willing.

I appreciate Mr. Bowman's frankness in mentioning the economic aspect of the issue of euthanasia. With an aging population and a health care system that's becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, economic concerns are becoming increasingly important, and will continue to do so, masquerading as compassion.

Every case is different and should be judged on its own merits, including that of Ms. McKitty. I, of course, know virtually nothing about her case, but I suspect that the kind of church mentioned in the article may have something to do with her case coming before the courts. Breakthrough Temple in Brampton, Ontario is a charismaniac Dominionist church, which seems to lean in the direction of the New Apostolic Reformation. They claim "Kingdom authority" in the here and now, which makes me wonder if they're having trouble accepting that a miraculous healing may not be occurring. Their statement of faith is weak when it comes to the Holy Spirit, which leads me to suspect that Breakthrough Temple is a Oneness Pentecostal church (their statement is so vague that it's hard to tell, which makes me suspicious that they're trying to conceal their true beliefs).

January 10, 2019 update: Unfortunately, Ms. McKitty died, as reported by Michelle McQuigge of The Canadian Press, December 31, 2018:

TORONTO - A family that went to court to keep their daughter on life support after she was declared brain dead says the Toronto-area woman's heart stopped beating on Monday, rendering her dead in their view.

Taquisha McKitty was 27 when doctors declared her "dead by neurological criteria" in September 2017 following a drug overdose that left her unconscious on a Brampton, Ont., sidewalk.

McKitty's family turned to the courts to prevent doctors from taking her off life support, saying the fact that her heart was still beating meant she was still alive according to the terms of her religious faith.

An Ontario court ruled against her family over the summer, a decision her relatives were in the process of appealing.

A lawyer representing her family issued a statement on Monday afternoon saying McKitty's heart had stopped beating earlier in the day.

In the statement, McKitty's father thanked the public for their support of the family during their court battle.

Sunday, 18 November 2018

Dutch authorities prosecute doctor for performing involuntary euthanasia on elderly woman

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

Physicians in the Netherlands in the 21st century are now doing voluntarily what Dutch physicians in the 1940s refused to do under Nazi occupation and pressure; so why are the Nazis still regarded as villains in countries that are increasingly adopting their policies?

This blogger has long predicted that voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia, so it comes as no surprise to see a report such as the following, which shows the slippery slope argument against euthanasia to be accurate; I am surprised that someone is actually being prosecuted. As reported by Agence France-Presse and Connor Boyd of the London Daily Mail, November 9, 2018:

Dutch authorities are prosecuting a doctor for euthanising an elderly woman with dementia in the first case of its kind since the practice was legalised in 2002.

The doctor, who was not named, has been charged with secretly drugging the woman's coffee with Dormicum to make her drowsy and asking her family to hold her down as she was lethally injected in a care home in The Hague in 2016.

Whilst the 74-year-old patient was receiving the lethal injection she woke up and began fighting the doctor.

An investigation showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.

It also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death.

It's the first time prosecutors in the Netherlands have successfully charged a doctor with unlawfully ending a patients life since euthanasia was legalised 16 years ago.

The Netherlands and neighbouring Belgium became the first countries in the world to legalise so-called mercy killing, but it can only be carried out by doctors and under very strict conditions.

According to the Dutch Medical Complaints Board, the dementia-sufferer had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when 'the time was right' if she ever ended up in a care home.

The medical board reprimanded the doctor in July after concluding its investigation.

It found that even though the woman was suffering intolerably and there were no further treatment options, two key prerequisites mentioned in Dutch euthanasia law, they deemed that the doctor had acted carelessly by not asking the patient explicitly if she agreed with the euthanasia.

Medical paperwork showed that she often exhibited signs of fear and anger and would wander around the building at night.

The nursing home's senior doctor was of the opinion that the patient was suffering intolerably, but that she was no longer in a position where she could confirm that the time was now right for the euthanasia to go ahead.

However, the euthanasia doctor reportedly believed that the woman's circumstances made it clear that the time was right for euthanasia.

The doctor also did not tell her patient what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruption to the planned euthanasia process.

Prosecutors said the doctor in the case 'overstepped the mark' with the nursing home patient, who had written a will saying she wanted to die but did not clearly say so at the time of her death.

'A nursing home doctor who performed euthanasia in April 2016 on a 74-year-old demented and incapacitated woman will be prosecuted,' the Netherlands prosecution service said in a statement.

'This is the first time that the Dutch Public Prosecution Service will prosecute a doctor for euthanasia since the introduction of the Act on Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide in 2002.'

The doctor believed she had acted cautiously and 'welcomes further guidance on the question of the wishes of incapacitated patients,' her spokesman was quoted as saying by the NOS public television channel.

'She regrets however that she has been prosecuted for this.'

The medical complaints board found that the advance directive of the OAP was contradictory and it should have never been read as a voluntarily and well-thought out wish to die.

The board added that the doctor made a mistake not discussing the use of a soporific in the patient's coffee.

Prosecutors added that the doctor 'should have checked with the woman whether she still had a death wish by discussing this with her.'

They said the case 'addresses important legal issues regarding the termination of life of dementia patients. To get these questions answered, the prosecution service now presents this specific issue to the court.'

The medical complaints board ruled: 'Given the irreversibility of ending a life and the ethical aspects linked to consciously ending the life of a fellow human being, a written euthanasia declaration should not leave any doubts for interpretation.'

The doctor, who retired a month after the euthanasia incident, has appealed the decision.

According to Dutch law, euthanasia is only legal as long as the doctor abides by the strict standards described in the 'Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act'.

The Dutch law code reads: 'Any person who deliberately terminates another person's life at that person's express and earnest request shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve years or a fifth-category fine.

In 2017, some 6,585 people chose euthanasia to end their own lives in the Netherlands, about 4.4 percent of the total number of more than 150,000 registered deaths in the country, according to the Regional Euthanasia Review Committee which strictly monitors all cases.

That year, the number of people in the Netherlands who legally ended their lives with medical assistance rose by eight per cent; the figure for 2016 was 6,091.

Twelve cases were identified as having possible concerns by the committee, of which two are now under investigation by prosecutors.

According to the Euthanasia Review Committee, which checks after the event if each euthanasia process was performed according to the law, 90 per cent of those who underwent euthanasia had been suffering from incurable diseases such as cancer or muscle-wasting diseases such as ALS.

However, three patients in a severe state of dementia also chose to end their life, as did 166 who only had early symptoms of dementia.

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

Spanish Parliament takes first steps toward legalization of euthanasia

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

I missed this when it was first reported; as reported by Agence France-Presse, June 27, 2018:

Spain's lower house voted Tuesday in favour of examining a draft law on legalising euthanasia, the second such bill accepted for consideration in just over a month in a first for the country.

Lawmakers voted 208 against 133 -- and one abstention -- to examine the bill, which was drafted by the ruling Socialist party.

In May, a similar proposal submitted by Catalonia's regional parliament was also admitted, but it only focused on legalising euthanasia.

This latest draft law also seeks to make euthanasia legal in public and private health services.

But it goes a step further by regulating it, laying out the conditions by which a person can apply to die.

It is the first time that bills aimed at legalising euthanasia make it past this first parliamentary hurdle after previous attempts failed.

"This regulation guarantees to protect the fundamental right to life, but also the recognition that it isn't an absolute right," Adriana Lastra, deputy head of the Socialist party, told parliament.

"It's a right that must be adjusted according to other values, including that of human dignity."

The draft law stipulates that a person can apply to die if he or she has a serious and terminal illness or suffers from a chronic, severe disability, and if they are Spanish or a legal resident in Spain.

The patient has to make his or her request by writing, free of any pressure, and repeat that demand after 15 days.

A person who can no longer take decisions but has previously given official instructions for the right to die will also be eligible.

Their doctor will then determine whether the patient meets these conditions and ask another physician who knows about the illness or disability to check this too.

Once these checks are done, the doctor will take the case to a regional evaluation and control commission which will give its final say.

For now, people with incurable diseases in Spain only have the option to refuse treatment.

In Europe, Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Other countries such as Switzerland allow assisted suicide, a practice that lets a doctor provide a patient with all the necessary lethal substances to end their life and leave them to carry out the final act.

Now that it has passed the first hurdle, the bill will go through various stages in parliament before it gets to the final voting stage in the lower house.
The earlier vote was reported by Agence France-Presse, May 10, 2018:

Spain's lower house voted Thursday in favour of examining a bill on legalising euthanasia, a first in the country even if there will likely be major opposition as it weaves its way through parliament.

Lawmakers voted 173 against 135 -- and 32 abstentions -- to examine the bill, which was originally drafted by Catalonia's regional assembly.

This is the first time that a bill aimed at legalising euthanasia makes it past this first hurdle after previous attempts failed, a parliament spokeswoman told AFP.

It seeks to modify part of article 143 of Spain's penal code, which currently bans anyone from causing or cooperating with the death of another person suffering from "a serious, terminal illness or one that causes serious, permanent ailments that are difficult to endure."

The bill would make it legal for a person to cause or help cause the "reliable, peaceful, painless death" of another suffering from those problems if they "specifically, freely and unequivocally" ask for it.

Currently in Spain, people with incurable diseases only have the option to refuse treatment.

But according to an opinion poll conducted by research firm Metroscopia in March 2017, 84 percent of Spaniards are in favour of allowing people with terminal illnesses to be helped to die "painlessly."

Lawmakers from Spain's conservative ruling Popular Party and another from the regional party of Navarra voted against accepting the bill on Thursday.

Centre-right party Ciudadanos, meanwhile, abstained, while all the other groupings in parliament -- most of them left-wing -- voted in favour.

Now that it has passed the first hurdle, the bill will go through various stages in parliament -- with different groups likely to present their amendments -- before it gets to the final voting stage in the lower house.

Thursday, 11 October 2018

Canada's largest children's hospital drafts policy that could allow for the euthanasia of children

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

Surely some future historian, surveying our times, will note sardonically that it took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazism to mount their own humane holocaust, which in its range and in the number of its victims, may soon far surpass the Nazi one. It is significant that, whereas the Nazi holocaust has received lavish TV and film coverage, the humane one goes rolling along largely unnoticed by the media. Malcolm Muggeridge, Sanctity of Life, Chatelaine, December 1979, p. 138

As reported by Sharon Kirkey of the National Post, October 9, 2018 (updated October 10, 2018) (links in original):

Canada’s largest children’s hospital is drafting a policy in preparation for the day when children could decide for themselves to be euthanized.

A team at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children has developed a draft policy on doctor-assisted dying that applies to youth aged 18 and older — the legal age restriction for “medical-aid in dying,” or MAID, in Canada. However, the policy was also developed “with an eye to a future when MAID may well become accessible to capable minors,” the team of bioethicists, palliative care doctors and others report in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

In the introduction to the article, they state, “Thus, this paper is intended as a road map through the still-emerging legal and ethical landscape of paediatric MAID.”

The Sick Kids’ working group says the hospital has willing doctors who could “safely and effectively” perform euthanasia for terminally ill youth 18 and older who meet the criteria as set out in federal law, and that it would be “antithetical” to its philosophy of care to have to transfer these patients to a strange and unfamiliar adult hospital. But it is a suggestion that euthanasia might one day take place without the involvement of parents that has provoked fresh controversy in the assisted-death debate.

The working group said it wasn’t convinced that there is a meaningful difference for the patient “between being consensually assisted in dying (in the case of MAID) and being consensually allowed to die (in the case of refusing life-sustaining interventions).”

In Ontario, “young people can be and are found capable of making their own medical decisions, even when those decisions may result in their death,” they added.

The paper explored a hypothetical scenario: “How should health-care providers respond if a capable patient requests MAID but their parents clearly oppose this request? Are there situations in which MAID requests and administration would be kept secret from parents and other family members, for example, if a capable patient were to indicate that they do not want family members involved?”

The law in most provinces already allows mature minors to make decisions about their own care, including withdrawing or withholding life support. In Ontario, a minor is considered “capable” of providing consent if he or she has the maturity and intelligence to make a decision about the treatment and can appreciate the “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of their decision.

The Sick Kids’ group says families are usually involved in such decisions and that every effort is spent to encourage youth to involve their families but that “ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected.”

The draft policy argues the same rules should apply to MAID since there is no meaningful ethical or practical distinction from the patient’s perspective between assisted dying and other procedures that result in the end of a life, such as palliative sedation (where people sleep until they die) or withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments.

The paper comes as a report by an expert panel struck by the Liberals to explore extending euthanasia to mature minors is to be presented to Parliament in December.

The Canadian Council of Academies was also asked to look at cases where mental illness is the sole underling medical condition, as well as “advance requests” to end one’s life in the future.

Sick Kids’ draft policy has riled groups opposed to euthanasia, with the National Review publishing a story with the headline, “Child euthanasia without parent approval pushed for (in) Canada” and The Catholic Register warning, “Assisted suicide plans for children unveiled at Toronto’s Sick Kids hospital.”

But the authors say the government could stipulate the need for parental consent.

“A young person experiencing grievous and irremediable suffering is unimaginably tragic,” said Randi Zlotnik Shaul, director of bioethics at the Hospital for Sick Children and a member of the expert panel studying assisted dying for mature minors.

But assisted dying requests from minors would likely involve “very, very small numbers” and any changes to the law “would, of course, require corresponding changes to hospital policy,” she said.

The draft policy states that, in order to protect staff from “potential violence and social harassment,” it will not make public the names of doctors who have volunteered to provide MAID, nor will it make public a full list of people on the working group.

For some doctors who care for terminally ill children, there is a particular horror at the idea of euthanasia for children. They have argued that when all hope for a cure is gone, virtually all pain and other symptoms can be managed to minimize suffering. In the rare cases where suffering becomes unbearable, they say, a child can be sedated.

Assisted dying involves an injection of barbiturates that abruptly ends life.

Legalization of euthanasia for children under 18 would be “enormously controversial,” said renowned New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan.

In the U.S., states that have made assisted dying available have done so with very narrow restraints, Caplan said. “I have no doubt that a child might ask for it, but whether they could really fulfill that competency test for such a major, life shattering decision, the U.S. says no,” Caplan said.

“I’m worried about how far people may be pushing this,” said Trudo Lemmens, a professor in health law and policy at the University of Toronto.

When it struck down the Criminal Code prohibitions against euthanasia in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada “clearly did not equate medical assistance in dying with just any other form of medical care,” he said.

“We do put limits on individual choices of mature minors that expose them to harm,” such as surrogacy and egg donation, Lemmens added.

“I think we have to carefully reflect on what it would mean to allow this particular practice without involvement of the parents.”

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only two jurisdictions in the world where assisted suicide for minors is permitted. The law in Belgium allows terminally ill children of any age to request euthanasia, with their parents’ consent.

In the Netherlands, the law requires parental consent for 12- to 15-year-olds, but permits 16- and 17-year-olds to request a doctor-assisted death.

A survey published last year by the Canadian Paediatric Society found that 45 pediatricians reported receiving requests for MAID by parents. More than half involved newborns or infants under a year old.
It will come as no surprise to this blogger when--not if--this institution that's supposed to be dedicated to healing children prefers killing them instead; such is the way Western society--especially in Trudeaupia--is regressing progressing (see the second post in the list below for information on the relatively benign origins of the German euthanasia policies that ended in genocide).

See also my posts:

One British baby snaps out of a coma after a cuddle from his mother--while another British baby in a coma is ordered by a judge to be left to die (July 31, 2012)

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down ban on assisted suicide (February 6, 2015)

U.K. High Court rejects parents' wishes, orders toddler's life support ended (February 23, 2018)

Belgium now euthanizes children as young as 7 (August 11, 2018)

Saturday, 11 August 2018

Belgium now euthanizes children as young as 7

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:22,28

Surely some future historian, surveying our times, will note sardonically that it took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazism to mount their own humane holocaust, which in its range and in the number of its victims, may soon far surpass the Nazi one. It is significant that, whereas the Nazi holocaust has received lavish TV and film coverage, the humane one goes rolling along largely unnoticed by the media. Malcolm Muggeridge, Sanctity of Life, Chatelaine, December 1979, p. 138

Professing themselves to be "progressives," they became "regressives," going back to the days before Hippocrates, when doctors were as likely to kill their patients as heal them. This blogger predicted exactly this sort of thing years ago; countries that once fought against the Nazis are increasingly adopting their policies, while still regarding the Nazis as villains. It therefore comes as no surprise to this blogger to see items such as the following, as reported by Henry Samuel of the London Daily Telegraph, August 7, 2018 (links in original):

Paris--Two children, aged nine and 11, have become the world’s youngest to be euthanised, according to a report.

The unnamed minors were administered lethal injections in Belgium, which has the world’s only law allowing terminally ill children in “unbearable suffering” to choose to die.

Their deaths, which occurred in 2016 or 2017, were revealed in a report from the CFCEE; the commission that regulates euthanasia in Belgium, and their ages were confirmed by a Belgian official.

It confirmed that Belgian doctors had given lethal injections to three children over the two-year period, including to a 17-year-old who was suffering from muscular dystrophy.

The nine-year-old, who had a brain tumour, and the 11-year-old, who was suffering from cystic fibrosis, were the first children under 12 to be euthanised anywhere, a member of the CFCEE told The Washington Post.

One of the most permissive countries in the world, Belgium amended its euthanasia law in 2014 to make it legal for doctors to terminate the life of a child, however young, who makes the request.

They must be judged to have the mental capacity to make the decision and receive parental consent.

Supporters of the law say a child should not be made to suffer against their will but opponents say children are too young to make the decision to die.

The July 17 report notes that three minors were among thousands of people to have died under Belgium's radical euthanasia regime between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017.

It merely describes all three as under 18 but a Belgian official has now disclosed their ages to the Washington Post.

Luc Proot, a member of the CFCEE, defended the decision to authorise the young euthanasia cases, saying: “I saw mental and physical suffering so overwhelming that I thought we did a good thing.”

For euthanasia to proceed in Belgium, doctors must first verify that a child is “in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term.”

Once a child has expressed a wish for euthanasia in writing, child psychiatrists conduct examinations, including intelligence tests, to determine their level of discernment and ensure they were “not influenced by a third party.” Parents can, however, overuse their request.

Belgium's decision to extend its euthanasia laws to all minors provoked outrage in the country and abroad.

Belgium’s bishops called the law “a step too far”, while a group of 162 Belgian paediatricians wrote: “We are today able to perfectly control physical pain, choking or anxiety at the approach of death.”

Prof Stefaan Van Gool, a child cancer specialist in Belgium, said: "There is, in fact, no objective tool today available that really can help you say 'this child has the full competence or capacity to give with full understanding informed consent'."

Wim Distelmans, head of the Belgian euthanasia commission countered: “Thankfully, there are very few children who fit the criteria, but that doesn’t mean that we should refuse (them) the right to die with dignity.”

The annual number of euthanasia cases across all age groups has multiplied almost five-fold in ten years in Belgium.

Of the 4,337 to opt for assisted dying in Belgium in 2016 and 2017, most were cancer patients.

However 710 were mainly elderly people who suffered from comparatively minor complaints such as blindness and incontinence. Some 77 chose to die because of unbearable psychiatric suffering. A further 19 young people between 18 and 29 decided to end their lives.

Last year, neurologist Dr Ludo Vanopdenbosch resigned from the CFCEE, in protest at the failure to prosecute when a dementia patient’s life was terminated without her prior consent.

Since then, 360 Belgian doctors, academics and others have signed a petition calling for tighter controls on euthanasia for psychiatric patients.

Despite the controversy, there is widespread backing for Belgium's euthanasia legislation, polls suggest.
As was the case in Germany in the 1920s through the end of World War II, the situation is going to get worse. The German mass killing program began in 1920 with the publication of a little book titled The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value by Dr. Alfred Hoche, a psychaiatrist, and Karl Binding, a jurist. Those who read it may be as surprised as I was to discover that the authors weren't advocating mass killing, but advocated a euthanasia program under strict controls.

Somehow, however, the the number of categories of people, and thus the number of people to be euthanized increased. When the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933, they didn't introduce euthanasia, but expanded a program that was already in existence. In Belgium now, as in the Netherlands, legalizing of euthanasia has "progressed" from adults to children; from physical to "psychological" suffering; from euthanasia with the consent of the patient to euthanasia without the consent of the patient (historically known as "murder").

The restrictions on euthanasia in Belgium as elsewhere, are increasingly disappearing, just as in Germany all those decades ago. We're already seeing it, with the dramatic recent increase in the number of people being killed in various countries practicing legal euthanasia. I find it hard to believe that the amount of actual suffering has increased in proportion to the number of people killed. The eventual result will be the same as that in Germany: mass slaughter.