Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies (The "Final Solution," Part Deux)

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Raising the stakes in an excruciating ethical debate, a hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures in a handful of cases and reporting them to the government.

The announcement last month by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded, and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response to the request, a spokesman said, and it may come as soon as December.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life such as spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a blistering illness.

The hospital said it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors — but there have been no legal proceedings taken against them.

Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to Groningen's announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend that the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside of Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's' clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country with 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States but that such practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in the United States. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.

I tried cooling off before posting, and re-wrote my original reply. Here's what I came up with.

Bottom line, suicide is not illegal.

That's a slight-of-hand argument that's typical for those who thinks government is better suited to run our lives but don't want to come right out and say it.

While suicide might be not be proscribed legally, it is banned in a practical sense. Although things vary by state, if you were to openly plan or make a public announcement (e.g., farewell to family) of self-deliverance, you would generally be met with forced incarceration.

Frankly, I believe such de facto legislative methods are cowardly and debase our republic, but that's a more general topic for another discussion.

Secondly, I find your lack of concern for the disabled to be callous. You might see no reason to change the laws, but perhaps you should consider that many of us find ourselves unable to act alone, especially as we age or find ourselves in a terminal condition. Don't mistake the ambivalence of the disabled community as support for taking away rights. Many disabled persons are acutely aware of how their desires are ignored every day, and are rightly concerned that things can only be worse when they are unable to fight for their needs themselves.

Therefore, we owe everyone a very strong commitment that they can have their wishes met after they cannot do things themselves----------whether it's for continued care, or a merciful escape. Might this mean strengthening the restraints against unwelcome euthanasia? Perhaps, but only if it is part of an effort directed at meeting all patient's wishes, not just a restriction in general.

IMO, of course. :-)

I can honestly say I am no authority on the subject of the psychology of "the disabled" - my point is that what you are asking is beyond anything a government can provide. You are asking the police to essentially look the other way whenever a "disabled" person dies of something other than natural causes.

Think of the amount of cases where there would be enough doubt to pursue criminal charges, and all your good intentions of preplanning for your suicide would go out the window. There was just a story about a truly bright professor who found out (or maybe didn't even find out, but was certain) he was terminal. He wrote letters of explanation to all those he cared for, and killed himself. My personal opinion of suicide notwithstanding, he did it in a way that provided some solace for his family and avoided a protracted legal fight to determine if it was suicide or homicide.

You wrote: Don't mistake the ambivalence of the disabled community as support for taking away rights.

I don't support TAKING AWAY rights - I think any doctor found to be negligent of providing care to anyone who needs it, regardless of prognosis is barbaric - I thought that was obvious from my own postings earlier. I simply believe that assisted suicide is too much a slippery slope - too many opportunities to take advantage. The right to extinguish a person's soul from this earth belongs to God - unless said person wants to take it into his/her own hands. Anything beyond that cannot be allowed by law. IMHO, of course.

Good discussion, though. I guess I am really hashing out my position on this subject as we "speak" :)

You are asking the police to essentially look the other way whenever a "disabled" person dies of something other than natural causes.

Actually, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. I'll try to clarify.

I'm suggesting we return to a period of time when we weren't so sensitive about the topic that we couldn't discuss it rationally and openly. In your example of the professor, note that he had to write letters and couldn't do it openly. Note that he was lucky enough not to require assistance. Not everyone is.

My personal opinion of suicide notwithstanding, he did it in a way that provided some solace for his family and avoided a protracted legal fight to determine if it was suicide or homicide.

I definitely agree. Unfortunately, not all are able to conduct their end of life decisions without some assistance.

The right to extinguish a person's soul from this earth belongs to God - unless said person wants to take it into his/her own hands.

We allow partners, professionals, friends, etc., to provide care for people who request assistance. We already recognize that a person's "own hands" can include assistance from others, and there's no reason that should be denied, if a patient requests it.

I also am glad for this discussion. It's good to hear other ideas on the topic, and to understand either flaws in my reasoning (nah, none of those! :-) or ways I am not communicating my views/evidence effectively.

It especially bugs me when people imply that supporters of assisted suicide are somehow evil or lack compassion. While I understand there are those who could be evil (perhaps Judge Greer in Florida is like this? I dunno...), most of these people that I know are extremely caring individuals who hate suffering. As for me, I should change my tagline...

I've got compassion running out of my nose, pal! I'm the Sultan of Sentiment!
--Albert Rosenfield (Twin Peaks)

The thing that has always surprised me is that I can legally choose to terminate the life of my beloved dog when it is suffering. But human beings fall under a different code of morality. I believe in retaining the ability to choose to die when one wants, with help or without. But I have always wondered how we can allow terminal infants to suffer. It seems the opposite of humane. BTW, I'm not Satan, just in case you might leap to that conclusion. I wouldn't inflict my choice on you, and I'd expect the same consideration from you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.