RIGHT TO DIE TURNS INTO DUTY

RIGHT TO DIE TURNS INTO 'DUTY'  
SLIPPERY SLOPE OF EUTHANASIA CAN QUICKLY BECOME AN ICY CLIFF
Sunday, October 3, 2004
Editorial/Opinion  
BY LICIA CORBELLA, EDITOR

 All last week, proponents of the right to die were trotted out on radio and  television shows across the country and were  frequently described as "experts."

Their warped soapbox -- built mostly on lies -- was quickly re-erected when  it was discovered that on Sept. 25, a  59-year-old Montreal mother called police when her son died.

The mother admitted that she had helped kill her 36-year-old son -- because  he was in pain from multiple sclerosis.

 This story about a mother's so-called "compassion" for her suffering son has  re-energized this dangerous cause.

If these so-called "experts" were really honest and really did their  homework, they would discover that in countries or  regions that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, what inevitably  ends up happening is the "right to die" very  quickly turns into the "duty to die" and very often into  murder.

 What's utterly maddening to me when people spout off about this topic is how  little most know about its realities.

I now ask everybody who says they are in favour of these murderous practices  if they have ever researched the facts  surrounding it.

 Not surprisingly, most have not. I heard one of these so-called experts on  the radio this past week scoff when someone  arguing against it said even with strict guidelines, the slippery slope very  quickly becomes a treacherous cliff.

Read on and consider if the following is just a gentle slippery incline or  an icy cliff.

 In the Netherlands, so-called "mercy killing" has been practised openly  since the 1980s, but was only legalized in 2002.

In a report written in 1991, while euthanasia was still technically illegal  in Holland, it was determined even back then that  in about one-third of the cases of euthanasia examined, the patient had NOT  given consent.

 This first government study on Dutch euthanasia, called The Remmelink Report  (after Prof. J. Remmelink, attorney  general of the High Council of the Netherlands, who headed the study  committee) made disturbing revelations.

It found that: In 1990, 1,040 people died from involuntary euthanasia,  meaning doctors actively killed these patients  without the patients' consent; 14% of the patients were fully competent and  72% had never given any indication that they  would want their lives terminated.

 Nobody was prosecuted or went to jail for these killings that violated the  supposed "strict" guidelines to prevent murder.

Right-to-die advocates often argue euthanasia is an issue of  "choice."

 But the Dutch experience clearly shows that when voluntary euthanasia and  assisted suicide are accepted practice, a  significant number of patients end up having no choice at all  -- forever.

In 1990 -- 12 years before euthanasia was legalized -- the Dutch Patients'  Association felt the need to develop  wallet-sized "do not kill me cards" which state that if the signer is  admitted to a hospital, "no treatment be administered  with the intention to terminate life."

 Of course, back when euthanasia was being debated and had never yet openly  occurred in Holland, the patter was that only  the very ill elderly would be granted such "mercy."

That lasted at best a few years when the practice started.

Now disabled infants are killed regularly in Holland. It is called pediatric  euthanasia.

 A paper entitled: "Assisted Suicide:Not for Adults Only?" by Rita L. Marker,  an attorney and the executive director of the  International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, states that in  July 1992 -- that's 14 years ago -- the Dutch  Pediatric Association announced that it was issuing formal guidelines for  killing severely handicapped newborns, something  that had been going on for years anyway.

According to Dr. Zier Versluys, chairman of the association's Working Group  on Neonatal Ethics: "Both for the parents and  the children, an early death is better than life."

Three of the eight centres on neonatology surveyed by the Dutch Pediatric  Society were performing euthanasia on  handicapped newborns.

Infants who were deemed eligible for death included not only those who were  terminally ill but children who were mentally  retarded or faced the prospect of living with a chronic  illness.

 These killings -- and this is well documented -- occur after the doctor  decides it's best and does not require the need for  parental approval. A 1997 article in a British medical journal found that 8%  of the infants who die in the Netherlands are  killed by their doctors.

If this information does not turn your stomach, might I suggest you join the  Clifford Olson fan club.

 Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to parents deciding on behalf of their  infant, not to undergo a bunch of invasive  operations that might help them survive.

Not accepting medical treatment and allowing a person to die naturally is  ethical and OK. But actively administering drugs to  kill someone is murder.

 The moral divide is not small and fuzzy but immense and very  clear.

But in Holland the killing of children doesn't just end at infants. That, of  course, would be discriminatory and unfair.

In Holland 12-to-15-year-olds are allowed to request euthanasia with the  consent of their parents.

 Those aged 16 and 17 can demand euthanasia -- and while their parents must  be informed -- the teen is allowed to make  the final decision.

As with adults and infants, these teens need not be terminally ill or even  in physical pain. Mental anguish (what teen doesn't  have angst?) is enough and many mildly depressed teens are killed by their  physicians in Holland every year.

 Oh, but surely that could never happen here, right?

Well, since 1997, doctor-assisted suicide has been legal in the state of  Oregon.

 Already serious debates about allowing depressed youth to decide on death  have been conducted. That's not a slippery  slope. It's a vertical ice rink.