British Doctors Use Euthanasia to Kill Nearly 3,000 Patients

LifeNews ^ | January 17, 2006 | Steven Ertelt

[NYer]

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey finds British doctors used euthanasia to kill nearly 3,000 patients in 2004. The poll also found that British doctors do not want to see the legalization of assisted suicide despite a campaign to do that.

Brunel University surveyed 857 doctors and found that thousands of deaths in 2004 were the result of illegal euthanasia.

According to a BBC report, the survey found that, of the 584,791 deaths in the UK in 2004, 936 were by voluntary euthanasia and 1,930 involved the doctor killing the patient without the patient's consent.

Of the euthanasia deaths, one-third of them were the result of doctors treating the symptoms of a disease or injury and just under a third involved doctors withholding treatment in cases when it is supposedly in the best interest of the patient.

Both of those courses of action are legal in Britain, the BBC reported.

None of the doctors in the poll said they had been involved in an assisted suicide and just 2.6 percent of the physicians surveyed said it would be beneficial to change the law to allow it.

Discussing the report, Professor Clive Seale told the BBC, "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are understandably very emotive subjects, but this work shows that UK doctors are less willing to take such actions than in several other countries."

In November lawmakers in the House of Lords introduced a private members bill to legalize assisted suicide. Pro-life groups have strenuously fought the bill and were successful in getting a provision allowing voluntary euthanasia to be removed from it.

Groups backing euthanasia said the report shows some doctors are engaging in the practice and that it should be legalized, but pro-life advocates disagreed.

Julia Millington, political director of the ProLife Alliance, told the BBC, "Surely the response of a civilized society is to stop this unlawful killing altogether rather than use such research to support demands for doctors to be permitted to do it legally."

A doctor associated with the British Medical Association also worried about the number of doctors engaging in euthanasia.

[redgolum]

This is ONLY about getting rid of useless expensive people

Since the flood gates have been opened in the US, that will become common here in a few years. Remember, at the time of RvW, no one expected abortion to be as commonplace as it is now.

[Van Jenerette]

...for reading.

[LexBaird]

I hope if I am suffering and have no chance for recovery that someone cares enough to slip me some extra morphine.

You seem to be suffering too much for my taste. I guess I'll kill you now, without your consent. Oops, I guess I have to become a doctor before I can do that.

[Salvation]

** A new survey finds British doctors used euthanasia to kill nearly 3,000 patients in 2004.**

Let's hope this doesn't find its way to other states in the U. S. Oregon is bad enough.

Is the Catholic Church standing alone on this?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[Centurion2000]

Churchill must be rolling over in his grave seeing that Hitler won the cultural war.

[Salvation]

Christ died for everyone's sins. Can't we all suffer just a little in comparison to his scourging, being crowned with thorns and finally being nailed to a cross??

Your self-centeredness is showing.

[Barney Gumble]

Part of Britian's problem lie in their NHS ("free healthcare"). The government may not want to pay for deems a proceedure too costly, they will let the patient die. I've documented a couple of stories on my blog while I was o'er there.

http://purveyors-of-truth.blogspot.com/2004/08/reminder-from-britian-national.html

http://purveyors-of-truth.blogspot.com/2004/10/britians-national-healthcare-mess.html

[klossg]

parsifal:I hope if I am suffering and have no chance for recovery that someone cares enough to slip me some extra morphine.

Salvation: Christ died for everyone's sins. Can't we all suffer just a little in comparison to his scourging, being crowned with thorns and finally being nailed to a cross?? ... Your self-centeredness is showing.

h8in08: I can tell you that I, my wife and virtually all of our family members on both sides would prefer an easy death over living a fruitless existence in a drug induced coma.

NYer:Churchill must be rolling over in his grave seeing that Hitler won the cultural war.

I can see a one off such as someone takes it upon themselves to sit in the car in a garage to die of CM poisoning, but to make it a law where doctors are involved - that is a little too close to death worship. If we are forced as a society to explain away a suicides because a person despairs when they get into an unbearable situation, that is reasonable and understandable. But, for a society to setup an entire medical procedure and pay a highly educated Doctor to perform deaths ... that is a little morbid. It is also too close to giving a doctor a little too much control.

Can we not plan on death before we get there. Can we remember that even a person suffering and unable to communicate is more valuable than Bill Gate's bank accounts! One life ... one lost sheep ... He'd risk them all to get that one lost sheep ... a human is more than a fluid sack with bad breath and a job. A human is a child of God, love incarnate, memories, actions ...

[heleny]

I don't believe the right to die movement is in any way about respecting the individual's choice. If it was they'd be pushing FIRST for allowing doctors to use heroin, cocaine or some other drug to alleviate suffering. Wouldn't most people choose being drugged and comfortable and at peace over death?

Last year the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Gonzales et al v. Raich et al that the federal government, by authority of the Commerce Clause, still could prosecute people for growing and using marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act despite California's medical marijuana laws. The 3 dissenters were Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas.

The 6-3 decision of Gonzales v. Oregon also concerns a conflict beween the local, voter-approved laws and the Controlled Substances Act, but this time the SC majority say that the federal government allows doctors to prescribe and procure the lethal drugs.

It's strange that the SC majority decided the Commerce Clause applied in the Raich/California case, where there was no economic activity because the patients were growing their own marijuana with no selling or trading, while the SC decided the Commerce Clause did not apply in the Oregon case, where it's possible to define some economic activity (paying a doctor for his services, paying for drugs).

[DBeers]

I am suspicious of the statement that, "1,930 involved the doctor killing the patient without the patient's consent." What does that mean exactly? Does that include people who were brain dead or otherwise incapacitated and their family members authorized euthenasia? This article is obviously from one side of the issue and that statement seems worded in a very particular way.

Your dilemma is simply corrected -instead of using the pleasing politically correct term "euthanasia" -just use the term murder and all will be clear to you...

Murder is murder...

[jb6]

1,930 involved the doctor killing the patient without the patient's consent.

Of the euthanasia deaths, one-third of them were the result of doctors treating the symptoms of a disease or injury and just under a third involved doctors withholding treatment in cases when it is supposedly in the best interest of the patient.

[AmericanDave]

'and 1,930 involved the doctor killing the patient without the patient's consent.'

Now THAT'S scary!

[AmericanDave]

add " to living EXPENSIVLEY in a drug induced coma"

At least euthenasia puts an end the medical bills.....

[AmericanDave]

According to the Oct Dec 2005 issue of the American Enterprise:

"Realize that 31 percent of pediatricians in the Netherlands have uethanized an infant, and that a fifth of these took place without the knowledge or consent of the parents" pg 8.

[Gennaro]

The U.S. is smarter than that. It institutes controversial euthania programs under different names; such as the Prescription Drug Benefit or Medicare Part D.

[parsifal]

This is silly sarcasm. A person in a brain-dead coma or in a vegetive state can't give consent. Just like they can't form a contract. That's when common sense needs to be applied. Doctors here have been doing it forever. Wake up. It ain't a bad thing.

parsy, the practical.

[parsifal]

Darn straight my self-centeredness is showing. I don't want to suffer if there ain't no end in sight and there's no quality to my existence. If someone else is getting off on watching me suffering, the heck with them. I want to dissappoint them.

parsy, who disdains most suffering.

[parsifal]

Can we remember that even a person suffering and unable to communicate is more valuable than Bill Gate's bank accounts!

I completely do not understand this. I would much rather my heirs get something when I croak rather than see it go to a hospital who kept me alive in a brain dead coma they knew I wasn't coming out of.

If you are trying to say that human life is valuable, well of course. But if I was brain dead (no sarcastic comments here please!) I would figure that I weren't nothin but the shell and the nut was gone. My value then, about squat.

parsy, who figures death is a part of life.

[LexBaird]

This is silly sarcasm. A person in a brain-dead coma or in a vegetive state can't give consent. Just like they can't form a contract. That's when common sense needs to be applied. Doctors here have been doing it forever. Wake up. It ain't a bad thing.

Yes, it is. This is not a decision for the doctors. It is a decision for the family or the pre-expressed will of the patient.

Of the euthanasia deaths, one-third of them were the result of doctors treating the symptoms of a disease or injury and just under a third involved doctors withholding treatment in cases when it is supposedly in the best interest of the patient

IOW, one third treating the symptoms (like pain, fever, nausea), but letting the patient die of the underlying disease, one third letting the patient just die. What is the remaining third? The only other option is actively causing the death of one who would not have died without intervention, and without consent. Doctor as judge, jury, and executioner.

[parsifal]

I doubt the Britdocs just murdered people. I watched this show on A&E(?) about the Britdoc who did just that. He went to jail.

I think maybe the 1/3 would have died in the near future and the docs just speeded it up some.

There are times when this gets out of hand, though. I had a friend who grandmother was put into a hospice situation due to a infection. It wasn't because she was about to die. She was recovering from a persistent infection and all she needed was care to keep her with her leg up in the air and the nursing home couldn't accomplish that. She was alert most of the time and may have recovered from her infection. For some unknown reason the hospice people shot her full of morphine and away she went about a week later. She was 93.

I suspect stupidity here more than euthanasia.

parsy, who is not blind in his trust of the medical profession.