Skip to comments.
All Hospitals Must Permit Euthanasia
Expatica.com ^
| June 13, 2003
| belgian news
Posted on 09/09/2003 8:10:36 AM PDT by MarMema
BRUSSELS The right to euthanasia must exist in all hospitals, negotiators forming Belgium's new government said Friday in a move to counter opposition by some Catholic hospitals that have allegedly refused to permit assisted suicide on their premises.
The negotiators, who are forming a government after the 18 May general elections, have laid down that every hospital must have a team of doctors prepared to apply euthanasia, under a strict policy designed to protect patients and their relatives. Euthanasia was made legal, under certain conditions, in Belgium last year.
Doctors will be given a protected status for performing euthanasia.
The chairman of the Flemish liberal VLD party, Karel De Gucht said euthanasia is the business of a doctor and a patient, and that hospitals should not interfere.
In February a doctor who carried out euthenasia on a terminally ill cancer patient in a Catholic hospital was dimissed by managers who accused him of not following the legal correct proceedure by the hospital management and dismissed. The doctor denied that he had disobeyed the law.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belgium; euthanasia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: bedolido
It has always happened here with hopeless terminal patients and decent doctors who let them go. The government getting into it and making it a matter of law and politics has changed things. Looks like making it legal is making it mandatory in some places, that is very scary. But it is a doctor patient God decision in my mind and the state ought to butt out.
21
posted on
09/09/2003 8:46:10 AM PDT
by
cajungirl
(no)
To: bmwcyle
LOL
22
posted on
09/09/2003 8:46:25 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery)
To: MarMema
Catholic hospitals should threaten to close and not sell the facilities. And if an exception is not given, then they should follow through.
I think we are going to see a lot more organizations use the "nuclear option" as liberlism progresses.
23
posted on
09/09/2003 8:47:20 AM PDT
by
kidd
To: BenLurkin
The way the children fight over what they are going to get is the ticket to make mom and dad go away to collect. God keeps things in his hands for a reason.
24
posted on
09/09/2003 8:50:03 AM PDT
by
bmwcyle
(Here's to Hillary's book sinking like the Clinton 2000 economy)
To: bedolido
There is no reason for a government to force a practice on a religion that finds it objectionable.
If a given government insists, then there is no law that states that Catholics have to operate hopitals.
25
posted on
09/09/2003 8:52:11 AM PDT
by
kidd
To: MarMema
For those under the age of 18, it would be Youthanasia.
26
posted on
09/09/2003 8:55:31 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: cajungirl
Ronald Cranford, MD, perhaps more than any other individual, has engineered the shift in medical practice and public opinion regarding denial of food and fluids to severely disabled, non-dying people. He helped create one of the country's first "bioethics" committees in 1972 and quickly established himself as an "expert" in this new field.
Often quoted, this Minneapolis neurologist is not an impartial professional but a propagandist for the "right" to kill. He was the principal voice calling for the starvation/dehydration deaths of Paul Brophy, Nancy Ellen Jobes, Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi, all of whom were brain-damaged but not dying. He testified that he would consider even spoon-feeding for Nancy Cruzan to be "medical treatment" because that "would be totally inconsistent with what was wanted" (her death). (Cruzan v. Harmon, [Missouri], Trial Testimony, 3/3/88, Transcript Vol. 1, pp. 228Ð229) He wrote in the CFD newsletter (Summer, 1988), "I also believe that there may be extreme situations, and in the future increasingly common situations, where physician-assisted suicide may not only be permissible, but encouraged."
27
posted on
09/09/2003 8:58:29 AM PDT
by
MarMema
To: MarMema
THe culture of death, er liberalism makes new inroads. But I ask you. WHY should this be surprising? When females are willing to murder our youngest member of society - a baby in a womb, why should other ages be emempt from be a murder target for whatever reason?
28
posted on
09/09/2003 9:02:44 AM PDT
by
nmh
To: MarMema
"Euthanasia for a seven-year-old kid theres no way, Liberal Senator Philippe Monfils told La Libre Belgique."
Hell, why not seven year olds. You murder younger than that in the womb that have absolutely NO defense what so ever. Might as well be consistent with "compassion". Right? Sarcasm off.
29
posted on
09/09/2003 9:09:39 AM PDT
by
nmh
To: MarMema
From Belgium, the country that tried to deliver us to the International Criminal Court! Go away and eat your moules.
30
posted on
09/09/2003 9:12:11 AM PDT
by
Chu Gary
To: bedolido
I'm torn on this issue. I saw my father die when he was mercifully given morphine and given fluids only until he died. This was in Seattle, Washington 8 years ago. So it happens here too, just not talked about alot. It is not a simple issue. If someone is suffering and is terminal and actually prefers to die than to remain on life support...
I can imagine that in relation to myself. My experience with it has mostly been with pets. But I do not think it is humane to make anyone continue to suffer when they do not want to themselves.
Not an easy thing.
To: cajungirl
I also wondered if you had any comments about
Futile Care Policy.
"As reported by the January 2, 2003, Cedar Calls Courier, some area hospitals now have rules in place that permit "medical staff to withdraw treatment over a family's objection." True, when there is a dispute, families and patients have a right to a hearing in front of a hospital ethics committee. But that isn't much solace. Such committees could easily become more stacked decks than dispassionate decision makers, mostly comprised of well-meaning people who either are part of the institutional culture or who have been trained to believe that futile-care theory is the right thing to do."
32
posted on
09/09/2003 9:25:05 AM PDT
by
MarMema
To: bedolido
It's called "comfort care". It's not murder. You are given what you need to get by. I know ... . My grandmom is 100 and 1/2 and on "comfort care" although she is a fighter and using her walker again ... but ONLY on liquid food. Still we won't kill her. She WANTS to live. She is in and out with Altzheimers BUT the will to live is there. I understand yuor mixed emotions ... we had them to when she had pneumonia (sp) but weathered it out. It knocked her out and why she no longer walks on her own. Up until the pneumonia she walked, ate solid food etc.. We have to be very careful about this issue ... it will be EASILY abused especially when there is money to gain. Let God handle these matters ... we need to put ourselves aside till He decides ... when it's time.
33
posted on
09/09/2003 9:28:23 AM PDT
by
nmh
To: nmh
THe culture of death, er liberalism makes new inroads. But I ask you. WHY should this be surprising? When females are willing to murder our youngest member of society - a baby in a womb, why should other ages be emempt from be a murder target for whatever reason? I don't see that as the same thing.
A viable fetus is one thing. Someone who is terminally ill and who is suffering and is going to die soon and who consciously asks to die now rather than later is different.
I think that is their decision. I know it isn't mine.
To: bedolido
YEah they get real huffy when they have to treat old people. Right to die, living wills, euthanasia, it's all a bunch of crap. They love you if you're young and cute and if you're old and sick they just want you to die so they can move the bed. I hate the direction healthcare is going.
35
posted on
09/09/2003 9:31:55 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Deconstruct the Left)
To: Consort
YouthanasiaMore than 800 children, mainly mentally and physically disabled, perished in the Spiegelgrund Children's Hospital in Vienna during World War II.
It was one of 30 so-called "euthanasia" centres in the Third Reich where 75,000 people across Europe, including 5,000 children deemed racially, mentally or physically unfit, were systematically murdered by doctors who daily betrayed their Hippocratic oath.
36
posted on
09/09/2003 9:35:24 AM PDT
by
MarMema
To: MarMema
the Hippocratic Oath ..."do no harm"....be damned....
To: ccmay; wideawake; MarMema
Considering Belgium is heavily Catholic, if these hospitals draw a line in the sand, Belgium's health care system will crumble.
To: johnb838
There is certainly a bias in the medical field against the elderly, the disabled, and those who are taking up resources and time to heal slowly when the bed space could be used for someone more healthy and more quickly healed.
It is a viewpoint of "these people are dying anyway, why not just let them go now?" which applies to anyone disabled, defective, or elderly. Pretty soon it will be, "Why not just go ahead and lethally inject them now?"
39
posted on
09/09/2003 9:40:21 AM PDT
by
MarMema
To: bedolido
I saw my father die when he was mercifully given morphine and given fluids only until he died. This is typical for how cancer patients are helped with pain until they die of their own accord. Euthanasia is a different story.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson