Oh really. Suggest you check out Holland's slide down the euthanasia slope.
Yes really. I've seen many irresponsible people post a lot of hype about Holland, but no facts of abuse & 'murder'.
Oregon & Holland have murder law, and anyone can be charged. - None have.
Yes really. I've seen many irresponsible people post a lot of hype about Holland, but no facts of abuse & 'murder'.
Try the following.
Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Evidence of the Slippery Slope
From Voluntary Euthanasia for the Terminally Ill...
1973
A Dutch criminal court sentenced a physician to one week in jail when she was found guilty of euthanizing her terminally ill mother. The brevity of the sentence and the fact that it was later suspended indicated the court's acceptance of euthanasia for reasons of unbearable suffering produced by terminal illness.
1981
A Dutch court convicted a layperson of helping a terminally ill person to commit suicide. However, the court's decision outlined nine guidelines which, if followed, would justify the practice of assisted suicide. The defendant was found guilty of the crime only because he was not a physician.
to Voluntary Euthanasia for the Chronically Ill...
1982
The Dutch court at Alkmaar acquitted a physician who euthanized an elderly woman. Though not terminally ill, the patient was in deteriorating health and "...experienced life as unbearable." In 1984, the Alkmaar case went to the Supreme Court, which held that physicians performing euthanasia for reasons of chronic illness can use the argument of "irresistible compulsion or necessity" as justification for their actions.
1986
A doctor who euthanized a 73-year-old chronically ill woman in the advanced stages of multiple sclerosis was found guilty by the district court but received no punishment. The appellate court declared a guilty verdict as well, but imposed a sentence of two months and two years probation which was later suspended. The Supreme Court referred the case to a lower court for a decision consistent with its opinion - - that is, that euthanasia could be justified for non-terminal patients if the patient was experiencing unbearable suffering and if the doctor was acting out of necessity.
to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia...
1985
The State Commission on Euthanasia reported that euthanasia should be restricted to cases in which a patient who is "suffering unbearably" expresses a voluntary wish for death. However, the report also suggested that the euthanasia of a patient in a vegetative state could be justified.
1987
Four nurses admitted that they had euthanized several unconscious patients at Free University Hospital in Amsterdam. Supported by the hospital's Employees' Council, the nurses were released from custody on the grounds that their actions had stemmed from humane considerations.
1989
A physician objected to being prosecuted for euthananizing a newborn baby with Down syndrome and an intestinal atresia even though the latter problem could have been easily fixed by surgery. The Supreme Court decided that because the baby would have suffered following surgery, the doctor's actions would probably be justified by the necessity defense if the case went to court. Therefore, his objection to prosecution was accepted.
to Euthanasia for Psychological and Social Reasons...
1991
At a forum in Toronto, Jeane Tromp-Meesters, coordinator of the Members Aid Service of the Dutch Society for Voluntary Euthanasia, acknowledged that patients "most likely" have to be physically ill in order to request euthanasia but advocated making such a rule more lenient. She explained that many older people, though not in physical pain, might have "age-related ailments'" which would make their lives unbearable.
1991
The Court of Almelo dismissed charges against a physician who had assisted in the suicide of a mentally ill patient. The doctor, who had provided suicide drugs to a 25-year-old woman who had been suffering from anorexia for 16 years, objected to being prosecuted. Because the woman had been suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement, the court accepted his objection.
1993
The Court of Appeal of The Hague reaffirmed the decision of the Court at Rotterdam to acquit a physician for assisting in the suicide of a 50-year-old woman suffering from depression and drug abuse. The defendant maintained that he had experienced a conflict in duties between his attempt to relieve the suffering of the patient and the law against assisting suicide. This justification, called force majeure, has been used in several cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia brought before the court.
1993
The Dutch Society for Voluntary Euthanasia issued a proposal in which it suggested that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be permitted for elderly persons who feel as if their lives have already been completed or are no longer meaningful.
1994
The Supreme Court justified ending the life of an individual not suffering from any kind of physical pain by acknowledging that physicians who find themselves in a state of necessity are forced to choose the relief of "unbearable suffering" over the effort to preserve life. The case involved Boudewijn Chabot, a Dutch psychiatrist who helped a depressed but otherwise healthy woman to commit suicide in 1991. Chabot, who was found guilty merely because he had not sought an authentic second opinion, received no punishment. The doctor defended his decision to give his patient 20 sleeping pills and a poison mixture to end her life by contending that "intolerable psychological suffering is no different from intolerable physical suffering." The Supreme Court agreed, claiming that a doctor may use the force majeure justification if the patient's suffering does not result from terminal illness or somatic disease.
1999
Dutch government proposes law codifying and expanding euthanasia practices. Includes provision allowing children as young as 12 to be killed against their parents' wishes.
From Pregnant Pause
A case study, related to me by a friend who is a doctor: He went to visit a patient in a nursing home. The director of the nursing home told him that a couple had recently come to visit their mother at the home, and told him that they wanted him to euthanize her. They frankly told him, 'We just can't make it without grandma's inheritance', and they were getting impatient waiting for her to die on her own. The nursing home director threw them out. The next time my doctor friend visited, the director told him that the couple had transferred grandma to another nursing home. Two weeks later, she was dead.
"Another case study, related by a Dutch doctor: He diagnosed a woman with cancer. He checked her into the hospital on a Thursday and began treatment. The treatment was quite successful. By Saturday she was showing definite signs of improvement. On Sunday he was quite hopeful she would fully recover. On Monday he came to visit and there was a different patient in her bed. He asked the hospital staff where they had moved her. 'Oh', a resident replied, 'we needed the bed, so we gave her the injection last night'. He meant a lethal injection, of course.
"I have heard anecdotal stories that elderly people in the Netherlands are now afraid to check into hospitals, for fear that they will be killed. According to Rita Marker of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, euthanasia now accounts for 15% of the deaths in the Netherlands.
"A few years ago Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado said that the 'terminally ill elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way'. ['Elderlys' Duty to Die', New York Times, 29 March 1984]
"Note that we have already made the transition from discussing 'a right to die' to 'a duty to die'.
"What does it say about our society, when we say that we will stop caring for a person because he is 'unproductive' or 'surplus'? I do not believe that the value of a human life can be measured by how many machine parts this person can make or how much he can be expected to pay in taxes. We must engage in economic activities to live, but this is not why we live. The purpose of economics is to sustain human life; the purpose of human life is not to sustain economics. A crippled person, a mentally retarded person, or an old person is no less valuable than a young and healthy person. The fact that they contribute less to the economy (even if true -- some are as productive as you and me) has nothing to do with their value as human beings.