Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine
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'.

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.

195 posted on 04/24/2002 8:46:54 AM PDT by Fithal the Wise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]


To: Fithal the Wise; outlawcam
Thanks fellas, you've went to a lot of work to prove my point. -- If abuses of these laws are found, juries will punish the offenders, or the laws will be amended.

The constitutional system works, if we let it. -- Big brother Ashcroft need not fret. - Or try bureaucratic, authoritarian methods to change it to suit HIS moral standards.

198 posted on 04/24/2002 9:21:21 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson