Belgian Parliament on verge of fully legalising child euthanasia with final vote on 13 February

I have previously documented Belgium’s meteoric rise to become the euthanasia capital of Europe and its concomitant grisly descent down the slippery slope.

Now the country is moving to allow euthanasia for sick children.

The measure has already passed by 50 votes to 17 in Belgium’s upper house and only needs a vote in the lower house to pass fully into law.

The Belgian government announced yesterday that the debate on the child euthanasia bill, in the Chamber of Deputies, will occur on 12 February.

According to the Belgian media the vote will likely happen the next day, but possibly on the same day of the debate.

The bill is being fast tracked likely because a strong opposition to it is developing. 

A few weeks ago, a large protest was held in Brussels opposing the extension of euthanasia to children.

An English petition against the move has already gained over 56,000 signatures and other language versions of the petition are accessible on the home page of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe website (Please add your signature).

Last week 38 Belgian paediatricians denounced the child euthanasia bill. The paediatricians stated that extending euthanasia to children was not necessary because:

1. Even the most complex medical cases can be solved in the current legal framework, with the means and expertise at our disposal. For whom is this legislation therefore designed?

2. Children in Belgium are not suffering. The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospital and at home.

3. A sensitive child may perceive the option of euthanasia as a solution or a duty, especially if the child feels that the parents can no longer bear to see him suffer.

4. In practice, there is no objective method for determining whether a child is gifted with the ability of discernment and judgment. So this is actually largely subjective and subject to other influences.

The paediatricians concluded: 

We believe that there is no urgency to pass this bill in the current legislature.

In a key demonstration of cross-continent opposition, parliamentarians from across Europe have now laid down a motion at the Council of Europe – best known for its focus on human rights – also denouncing this latest of alarming developments in the country’s law.

Written declaration no. 567, is entitled ‘Legalisation of euthanasia for children in Belgium’.

The Declaration states that extending euthanasia to children:

1. Betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die

2. Mistakenly assumes that children are able give appropriate informed consent to euthanasia and that they can understand the grave meaning and complex consequences associated with such a decision

3. Promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.

36 British MPs and Peers are members of the parliamentary assembly (18 principals and 18 substitutes – is your MP among them?) and thankfully seven have already signed the declaration. 

They are:

·         James CLAPPISON MP (C, Hertsmere)

·         David DAVIES MP (C, Monmouth)

·         Sir Edward LEIGH MP (C, Gainsborough)

·         Jeffrey DONALDSON MP (DUP, Lagan Valley)

·         Joe BENTON MP (L, Bootle)

·         David CRAUSBY MP (L, Bolton North East)

·         Sir Alan MEALE MP (L, Mansfield)

Care Not Killing, for which I act as Campaign Director, has covered this issue in context a number of times (see here, here, here and here)  and fully endorses the parliamentarians’ view that the move ‘betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die... [and] promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.’

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’ situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness, with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable, and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Other articles

Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world (This blog)

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope (This blog)

Belgian Child euthanasia bill will likely go to a vote on 13 February (Alex Schadenberg’s blog)

My Radio Four Today programme debate on the ‘right to die’ cases before the Supreme Court

You can listen to the interview and read a short report on the BBC website.

Two men seeking assisted suicide are having their arguments heard by the Supreme Court this week in the latest round of their legal battle.

Paul Lamb, 57, was involved in a car accident in 1990, which left him paralysed, save for limited use of his right hand. He is seeking permission for a doctor in the UK to prescribe him lethal drugs so that he can take his own life.

‘Martin’, 48, suffered a brainstem stroke in August 2008, the effects of which are permanent, leaving him virtually unable to move and unable to speak. He can communicate only through small movements of his head and eyes and is totally dependent on others for every aspect of his life.

Because of his physical disabilities, ‘Martin’ is unable to take his own life. He wishes to go to Dignitas to end his life but his wife, although she wants to be there at the end, is unwilling to take part in any of the preparation or planning for her husband’s death.

The Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines state that a prosecution is more likely where a ‘professional’ assists a suicide. ‘Martin’ is seeking further clarity from the DPP regarding the likelihood of a doctor or carer assisting his suicide being prosecuted.

Both Lamb and ‘Martin’ are arguing that the current law represents a disproportionate and discriminatory interference with their right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, because it does not allow them to end their lives at a time and in a manner of their choosing - with the help of a medical professional.

Over the past 24 hours I have done six media interviews on these cases on behalf of ‘Care Not Killing’– BBC One o’clock news, Channel  5 News,  three BBC regional radio stations and the Radio Four Today programme.

I argued that if the Supreme Court were to accede to either man’s request this would be a far-reaching legal change that would remove legal protection from a large number of vulnerable, elderly, and disabled people.

You can listen to the (brief) Radio Four debate with Raymond Tallis and read a short BBC report on it here. The presenter was Sarah Montague (pictured).

Because of the death overnight of actor Peter O’Toole, our 0830 slot was bumped to 0855 leaving less than five minutes to deal with these very complex issues.

This was a matter beyond the presenters’ control and both Sarah Montague and Evan Davies said afterward that they had wanted to move the debate onto the concerning developments in other European countries that have changed the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. They regretted that there was not time for this.

It is however noteworthy that the Belgian senate has in the last week voted to legalise euthanasia for children with terminal illnesses. The Belgian lower house is expected to offer not opposition to this when it considers it in the spring of 2014.

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia, depression and a botched sex change operation; organ transplant euthanasia; and plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

With these two court cases proceeding and two bills due to be debated in British parliaments next year we should heed the loud warnings coming from across the English Channel. 

Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world

Please sign this petition to stop child euthanasia in Europe. It takes only a minute to do. 

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’ situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness, with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable, and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

Assisted suicide is treated the same as euthanasia when reported, despite its position in law being unclear.

Here is a series of articles, both on this blog and elsewhere, which chart the steps in Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world. Much of this material has not been covered by the British media in spite of the fact that Belgium is one of our very closest European neighbours.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Terminally transsexual: Concerns raised over Belgian euthanised after botched sex change

(National Post, 22 November 2013)

Death by doctor: Controversial physician has made his name delivering euthanasia when no one else will

(National Post, 22 November 2013)

Belgium debates euthanising suffering children 
(Deutsche Welle, 22 November 2013)

Belgian Senate will vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November 

(Alex Schadenberg, 21 November 2013)

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope

(Wesley Smith, 21 November 2013)

A deadly conflict of interest: why euthanasia in Belgium is so out of control

(Tom Mortier, 20 November 2013)

Belgium moves to make euthanasia legal for children, dementia patients

(National Post, 31 October 2013)

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide - more worrying developments in Belgium and the Netherlands

(Peter Saunders, 15 August 2013)

Belgium and the Netherlands escalate their children’s euthanasia programmes

(Peter Saunders, 17 June 2013)

Stunning 5,000% increase in Belgian euthanasia cases in eleven years since legalisation

(Peter Saunders, 6 April 2013)

Belgium becomes world leader in organ removal after euthanasia as Oxford academics suggest the practice could generate 2,200 more organs a year in UK

(Peter Saunders, 16 March 2013)

Fresh warning sounded to UK as euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in Belgium in just one year

(Alex Schadenberg, 2 March 2013)

Belgian twin euthanasia story is just the tip of a chilling iceberg

(Peter Saunders, 28 January 2013)

Deaf twins killed by legal euthanasia had to search two years before they found someone who would do it

(National Post, 14 January 2013)

Euthanasia is out of control in Belgium – new ten year review

(Peter Saunders, 10 December 2012)

Euthanasia in Belgium: Ten years on 
(European Institute of Bioethics, April 2012)

Using organs from euthanasia victims now an established procedure in Brave New Belgium

(Peter Saunders, 12 June 2011)

Belgian Senate will vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November

Alex Schadenberg is chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International. The following article is reproduced with permission from his blog.

Euthanasie Stop in Belgium is reporting that the Belgian Senate will vote on the bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November. Earlier reports suggested that the bill might be delayed until after the next election. Insiders recently learned of a political trade-off with the Flanders N-VA party which has enabled the Socialist party to bring this bill to a vote immediately.

Currently the Belgian euthanasia law limits euthanasia to people who are at least 18 years old. This unprecedented bill would extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.

The Belgian Socialist government is adamant that the euthanasia law needs to extend to minors and people with dementia even though there is significant examples of how the current law is being abused and the bracket creep of acceptable reasons for euthanasia continues to grow. The current practice of euthanasia in Belgium appears to have become an easy way to cover-up medical errors.

EPC needs you to email Annemie Turlelboom, Minister of Justice at: info@just.fgov.be  and Laurette Onkelinx, Minister of Social Affairs and Health at: info@laurette-onkelinx.be or dg-soc@minsoc.fed.be. 

Sample letter: 

I am writing to urge you to stop the initiative that promotes euthanasia of minors. 

Regardless of disability, life should be valued. To pass legislation that allows termination of life for people with disabilities who are minors is unacceptable. 

Instead we must make every effort to use the research provided to us to provide attentive care to relieve their physical suffering in a moral way. 

Please oppose the euthanasia of children! 

Sincerely...

The number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium is skyrocketing with an increase of 25% in 2012. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors.

Some Belgian experts are supporting the extension of euthanasia to children with disabilities because they say that it is being done already. The same medical experts suggest that the extension of euthanasia will result in an increase of 10 to 100 euthanasia deaths each year.

The Belgian euthanasia law appears out-of-control. The Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission appear to be in a conflict of interest. The Commission supported the euthanasia deaths of: Nathan Verhelst (44) who was born as Nancy,Ann G who had Anorexia Nervosa and was sexually exploited by her psychiatrist, Mark & Eddy Verbessem, and at least one depressed woman. These are only the cases that we know about.

Dr Wim Distelmans, who is the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium has also been the chairman of the Belgian euthanasia commission for more than 10 years, and the commission has been stacked with supporters of the euthanasia lobby.

All of this is occurring after the recent launch of EPC - Europe, a coalition of groups and individuals from across Europe who are working together to halt the growing threat of state-sanctioned euthanasia.

The EPC - Europe launch included a debate between myself and euthanasia promoter Professor Jan Bernheim. During the question and answer session, Bernheim admitted that there are problems with the Belgian euthanasia law while Professor Etienne Vermeersch, an author of the Belgian euthanasia law stated that the euthanasia law was designed for people with disabilities.

The experience with euthanasia in Belgium should concern everyone.

More detail on this story in Deutsche Welle 

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope

Wesley J Smith (pictured), is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant for the Patients’ Rights Council. He also acts as a consultant for the Centre of Bioethics and Culture (CBC). This article is reproduced with permission from their website.  

If you want to see what happens when a society enthusiastically swallows the euthanasia poison, look at Belgium. Perhaps influenced by its neighbour the Netherlands — which pioneered euthanasia permissiveness — Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. The country has since leaped head-first off a vertical moral cliff.

As usual, when the law was being debated, supporters described it as being strictly limited to those at the end of life for whom nothing else but killing would adequately alleviate suffering. That is definitely not how things have worked out.

The international media usually ignore euthanasia and assisted suicide abuses. But even the complacent Fourth Estate couldn’t ignore the joint euthanasia deaths of disabled Belgian identical twins named Marc and Eddy Verbessem.

Neither of the brothers had contracted a terminal illness. Nor were they in physical pain. Rather, having been born deaf, and at age 45, both were progressively losing their eyesight. As the Telegraph reported, “The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of being unable to see each other again.” When their own doctor wouldn’t kill them, they found their executioner in one Dr David Dufour, who calmly and coolly told a television newscast:

‘They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation. Then they separation from their parents and [each] brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.’

In a morally sane society, Dufour would lose his license to practice medicine and be tried for homicide. But Belgium apparently no longer fits that description.

Perhaps the Verbessem lethal injections should not surprise us. In the last few years, euthanasia consciousness has bored deeply into Belgian societal bone marrow.

Joint Euthanasia Deaths of Elderly Couples

At least two elderly couples who didn’t want to live apart have also been reported. The first was in 2011 — and apparently the local community knew about the plan and approved. They even made their final arrangements at the local mortuary before being killed. The couple’s demise was celebrated by a Belgian bioethicist who said: “It is an important signal to break a taboo,” adding, “This is a beautiful example that allows us to provide a dignified death to this couple, thanks to euthanasia.” Most societies see joint suicides by elderly couples as tragic. In Belgium, apparently, they are ‘beautiful.’

Euthanasia after Sexual Exploitation by Psychiatrist 

Bioedge recently posted a story, taken from Belgian news reports, about the euthanasia of “Ann G.” Ann was a suicidal anorexia patient who publicly accused her previous psychiatrist of persuading her into sexual relations. When the psychiatrist — who admitted the charge — was not severely disciplined, Ann went to a second psychiatrist for euthanasia. She died at age 44.

Euthanasia for a Botched Sex Change

Nathan Verhelst underwent a sex change surgery from woman to man, and then was euthanized because of despair over the result. From the Daily Mail story:

‘A Belgian transsexual has chosen to die by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation to complete his transformation into a man left him a “monster”. Nathan Verhelst, 44, died yesterday afternoon after being allowed have his life ended on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" . . . In the hours before his death he told Belgium’s Het Laatse Nieuws: "I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself."’

So, Dufour — the same doctor who killed the disabled twins — killed him! Words rarely fail me. But they do here.

Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting of the Disabled

The joining of voluntary euthanasia and organ harvesting in Belgium first came to light in a 2008. The doctors who removed the woman’s organs after her death published a letter in the medical journal, Transplantation, reporting that a totally paralyzed woman first asked for euthanasia — permission granted — and then to donate her organs after her heart stopped.

Since this first known case, other euthanasia killings followed by organ harvesting have been reported. In 2009, Transplantation Proceedings published an article entitled, “Organ Procurement After Euthanasia: Belgian Experience,” in which doctors described euthanasia accompanied by organ harvests from disabled patients in clinical detail.

Euthanasia and organ donation has now expanded to include at least one patient with a severe mental illness. As reported in “Initial Experience with Transplantation of Lungs,” published in 2011 Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology (PDF), four patients (three disabled and one mentally ill) were euthanized and their lungs harvested.

By joining euthanasia with organ donation, Belgium crossed a very dangerous bridge by giving society autilitarian stake in euthanasia. But the acceptance of joint killing and harvesting also sends the cruel message to disabled, or mentally ill people: “Your deaths have greater value than your lives.” In such a milieu, self-justifying bromides about “choice” and the “voluntary” nature “of the process” become mere rationalization.

What’s next for Belgium? Euthanasia for children! — currently being debated in the Parliament and expected to become law. But why be surprised? Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom.

A deadly conflict of interest: why euthanasia in Belgium is so out of control

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia.

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

But why Belgium? 

One of the reasons seems to be because of the utter failure of regulation of the practice which is exacerbated by serious conflicts of interests. One of the leading euthanasia doctors actually chairs the regulatory committee that is mean to supervise him! Other members of his ‘Commission’ are pro-euthanasia activists.

Dr Tom Mortier (pictured), Leuven University College, and Dr Georges Casteur, General Medical Practitioner, Ostend, lift the lid on Belgium’s euthanasia governance fiasco. Dr Tom Mortier is also a member of the Belgian group - Euthanasie Stop. Parts of this article were previously published by the Belgian Medical Newspaper

In October 2013, the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, Wim Distelmans, received international media attention for the second time. Under his ‘medical’ guidance, he killed 44-year-old Nathan Verhelst, who was born as Nancy. Distelmans, who is an oncologist, said on the Belgian radio that his patient met ‘all’ the conditions of the euthanasia law. Furthermore, Distelmans said that unbearable suffering under the Belgian euthanasia law can be both physical and psychological.

In the case of Nathan Verhelst, euthanasia was done for reasons of psychological suffering. Distelmans said that it is not exceptional for mentally ill patients to be euthanized. When he was asked about the terms of the legislation, Distelmans replied laconically that a second opinion should be sought from two other doctors, and when the patient is not terminally ill, one doctor must be a psychiatrist. Furthermore, a month must pass between the written request for euthanasia and the lethal injection.

However, according to the Belgian euthanasia law, the opinions of the two other doctors are not binding; and the doctor who does the euthanasia can ignore a negative opinion and still give a patient the lethal injection. Basically, in Belgium, a person only needs to find a euthanasia doctor who is willing to kill! The euthanasia doctor only has to have two written reports in the medical record approving euthanasia of the patient and the doctor can ignore any negative reports.

It is striking to see that Distelmans, as the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, has been given so much freedom. Distelmans has become a Belgian media icon who continually propagates his ideology through various newspapers and magazines. His institutional background also has enabled him to be honoured as the ‘hero of the Belgian euthanasia law’. He has been the chairman of the Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission (Belgian Commission) for more than ten years.

Furthermore, he has started his own ideological association (Leif) that is giving awards to other members of the Belgian Commission. For instance, the retired Senator Jacinta De Roeck, a pro-euthanasia activist, was recently honoured by Distelmans with a ‘lifetime achievement award’, which is ironic as already more than 8000 euthanasia cases have been registered in Belgium since 2002.

As the chairman of the Belgian Commission, Distelmans is ‘controlling’ his euthanasia law, while continuing to administer lethal injections after ‘consulting’ with his close colleagues. Therefore, we strongly question whether independent consultations, a legal requirement of the law, are actually occurring during these so-called medical consultations. Is it not a conflict of interest when Distelmans declares euthanasia cases performed by himself to the Belgian Commission when he is also the chairman and when the members of the Belgian Commission include pro-euthanasia activists like Jacinta De Roeck and Jacqueline Herremans?

Furthermore, there will never be a two-thirds majority to send a case to a judge because the members of the Belgian Commission and its chairman are in a conflict of interest!

It appears that Distelmans has become both the judge and the executioner.

If the euthanasia law in Belgium has taught us anything, it is that in Belgium the euthanasia doctors have been given all of the power in contrast to the patients who are given lethal injections!

Sourced both from Tom Mortier and Alex Schadenberg’s blog

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide - more worrying developments in Belgium and the Netherlands

I was recently interviewed by Emily Graves of Crossrhythms Radio about moves to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide around the world. The following is an extract from the interview focussing on recent developments in Belgium and the Netherlands. The full transcript is available on line.

Emily: Can you tell us a little bit more about what is going on in Belgium at this time?

Peter: Part of the difficulty we have is that it's not been very well reported, or it's been reported in Flemish or French and not been well translated into English media by broadcast or print. What we can gather is that in Belgium euthanasia was legalised back in 2002, but it's only for mentally competent adults, people over 18. What they're wanting to do now is to extend it to children younger than 18 and also to make it available to adults who aren't mentally competent; some of them with Alzheimer's disease or dementia. It's a huge move, which is going to open the boundaries much more.

Emily: When it's specifically speaking about a child, what age range is it referring to? When is the cut-off point?

Peter: They're saying that the child has to be old enough to make a decision. Presumably it applies to older children who are younger than 18. Although it raises a question if a child is not old enough to pick up a drink, to vote, to marry, to drive a car, then why are they giving permission for them to make the most important decision of all about whether they can have their lives ended. It raises real questions; how are they going to determine whether a child's suffering is adequate enough? Is that just going to be subjectively defined depending on the opinion of the doctor? How are they going to work out that they are making a decision free from coercion; a mature decision that's well thought through? It raises all sorts of questions about loopholes and extension.

Emily: Will a child have a full understanding of what this could mean for them?

Peter: We are talking about teenagers aren't we and we all know how often teenagers make quite impulsive decisions that are not well thought through. These are about life style issues; do I have sex, do I drink, do I smoke, do I drive a car in this way and so on and teenagers are notoriously not good because their brains are not yet developed at this stage to properly think through what the consequences of decisions are. Yes, I think it's very dangerous indeed.

Emily: If this is something that does go through do you think it will encourage other countries to go the same way?

Peter: I would hope that other countries seeing this would be horrified and definitely don't want to go down the Belgium route. That's what I hope the reaction will be.

Emily: Since 2005 the Netherlands have not prosecuted doctors who have performed euthanasia on minors as long as the doctor's act is in accordance with a set of medical guidelines dubbed ‘The Groningen Protocol’. Please could you tell us more about that?

Peter: The Groningen Protocol is named after a large town in the Netherlands where it was developed. This is something quite different really. In the Netherlands it is supposedly illegal to offer euthanasia to minors and to babies, but what they have created is a system whereby babies who are disabled or who have severe illnesses, such that they are unlikely to survive, can have euthanasia involuntary. This is obviously long before they are capable of making any decisions for themselves. What happens is that if the doctor can tick a series of boxes, the judiciary basically turns a blind eye and allows them to get on with it. This is hugely controversial.

When it was first written up in a peer-reviewed medical journal in 2005 they reported on 22 cases of babies with spina bifida who'd been given lethal injections over a seven year period and said that there were probably many more. In fact the Dutch Medical Association has just issued a report saying that they think there are around 650 babies every year that could be given lethal injections under this protocol. It seems to have been accepted in the Netherlands now that if you are a baby with special needs then your life is not worth living, so you can effectively be bumped off by doctors, with the consent of your own parents as well. Many parents are giving consent for this and you can imagine the Disability Rights Lobby is absolutely incensed and up in arms about this. They are saying, you are saying my life is not worth living, because this child with the same condition as me has been killed without having any say in it whatsoever. It's a very dangerous and worrying precedent that first of all people are saying that such a life is not worth living and allowing others to make that judgement about people; but secondly, that in the Netherlands one of the main things seeming to be driving this is the supposed suffering that it causes to the family. If you're burdened in the family with someone with an illness then it's alright to kill them.

Emily: Do you think that this protocol has encouraged Belgium to look at the child euthanasia bill?

Peter: Yes. I suppose the difference is that under the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands we're talking about disabled babies. Whereas in the Belgium situation it's more minors, teenagers younger than 18, so it's a different sort of thing. In Belgium it's going to be legalised, whereas in the Netherlands it's not legal but the judiciary turns a blind eye. There are some differences, but what we've seen is that wherever euthanasia and assisted suicide is legalised, you get what we call incremental extension; a slippery slope. You get more and more cases every year; in fact in Belgium there's been a 5,000% increase in the number of annual cases recorded since the first year in 2002. It goes steadily up every year. In the Netherlands since 2006 there's been a 15%-20% increase every year. In the Netherlands they're now talking about patients with dementia having it and the first ones have already had euthanasia there. There are a large number of people in the Netherlands now, one in eight deaths is due to what we call terminal sedation, where they withhold fluids and food and give huge doses of sedatives, with the deliberate intention that the patient will not come out of it and will not survive. There's a real case of incremental extension and the slippery slope operating in the Netherlands.

Emily: Going back to Belgium, this is a very significant step if this bill is passed, as Belgium would be the first country to legalise child euthanasia. How will this impact the country?

Peter: What we see whenever a new law comes in is the first thing is that people start to practise up to the new law; so there will be child euthanasia. The second thing that happens is that people go beyond the new law; they push the boundaries and you see it being applied in less severe cases. It's not going to be long before someone raises the question about babies as they have in the Netherlands. The third thing, and perhaps the most worrying thing that happens, is that the public conscience begins to change, so that things that would have horrified people in one generation just don't bother people much at all in the next generation. We've seen this in the parallel case of abortion, where 50 or 60 years ago for most people in Britain abortion would have been absolutely unthinkable; but now we have 200,000 cases a year and one in five pregnancies ending in abortion. There is no doubt in my mind that the same thing will happen with euthanasia once it becomes more widely practised. As I say it all starts with the idea that there's a life not worth living, combined with the idea that if someone is creating a burden for us, then we can encourage them to end their life or make that decision for them.

For ten year report on Euthanasia in Belgium see here.

Belgium and the Netherlands escalate their children’s euthanasia programmes

In this last week both Belgium and the Netherlands have taken major steps towards euthanasia for children.

A consensus among members of the Belgian Federal Parliament has reportedly formed in support of legislation to allow children to choose to undergo euthanasia in certain dire cases, according to a report in the Belgian daily newspaper Der Morgen, as translated by the Paris-based news agency Presseurop.

If child euthanasia is legalized in Belgium, the country would become the first in the developed world to have a law on the books formally allowing the practice.

Belgium became the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalize euthanasia in 2002, but the statute currently extends only to people 18 or older.

The bill, introduced by the Socialist party last December, lays out guidelines for doctors to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not a child is mature enough to make the decision to end his or her own life, as well as whether a child's health is grave and hopeless enough to warrant euthanasia.

‘The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,’ Socialist party leader Thierry Giet said shortly after the bill was introduced, according to Agence France-Presse.

‘On both sides of the linguistic border, liberals and socialists appear to agree on the fact that age should not be regarded as a decisive criterion in the event of a request for euthanasia,’ Der Morgen wrote last week.

The decision to consider the bill follows months of testimony by medical experts, doctors, clergy members and others, and it marks a turning point in the nation's approach to the rights of young people, some of whom would be able to choose to die if the law were to pass, even while still being legally barred from driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until they turned 18.

The bill would also likely allow euthanasia for patients suffering from Alzheimer's and other diseases leading to advanced dementia, who may otherwise be deemed incompetent to make the decision to die. There were 1,133 cases of euthanasia recorded in Belgium in 2011, accounting for about 1 percent of the country's deaths that year, according to AFP.

Peter Deconinck, president of the Belgian medical ethics organization Reflectiegroep Biomedische Ethiek, has come out in support of expanding the practice to minors, as has the head of the intensive care unit of Fabiola Hospital in Brussels, who testified before a Belgian Senate committee.

‘We all know that euthanasia is already practiced on children,’ he told the committee. ‘Yes, active euthanasia.’

A majority of members of the Belgian Parliament are reportedly ready to pass the child euthanasia bill.  

In a separate move the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), which represents doctors in the Netherlands, has said that distress felt by parents can justify euthanasia of a dying newborn.

The Netherlands has since 2005 not prosecuted doctors who perform euthanasia on some minors as long as the doctors act in accordance with a set of medical guidelines dubbed the Groningen Protocol, drafted by Dr Eduard Verhagen in 2004.

Verhagen reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2005 on 22 babies with spina bifida who were given lethal injections under the protocol over a seven year period.

However, in a new policy document, ‘Medical decisions about the lives of newborns with severe abnormalities’ (in Dutch only) the KNMG now explains why it is acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, to euthanase children.

What is new about this statement is that it says that the parents’ suffering may be a reason to kill the newborn.

Amongst other conditions, the policy states that a lethal injection of muscle relaxant is ethically possible when ‘the period of gasping and dying persists and the inevitable death is prolonged, in spite of good preparation, and it causes severe suffering for the parents.’

Dr Verhagen, who is also one of the authors of the recent KNMG report, explained to Volkskrant, a leading Dutch newspaper, why parental anguish is relevant.

Doctors should spare parents the ‘abomination’ of seeing their child die in distress, he argues.  It is part of good palliative care.

The criteria for euthanasing newborns are as follows (from page 54 of the report): if the child is suffering, if it cannot express its own wishes, if death is inevitable and if the dying process is prolonged, then the child may be euthanased and spare the parents further severe suffering.

Of the 175,000 babies born every year in The Netherlands, the KNMG suggests that about 650 might be cases which would be worthy of euthanasia.

‘These babies, despite very intensive treatment, will certainly die in the short term. They have a poor prognosis and a very bleak life perspective. They may not be dependent on intensive care but they face a life of serious and hopeless suffering. Doctors and parents face the exceedingly profound question of whether to start or continue treatment or even whether a good action may actually be a harm, in view of the suffering and disability that may result from the poor health of the child.’ 

These disturbing latest developments in the two countries which were the first to legalise euthanasia in Europe demonstrate graphically the incremental extension that takes place once the door is opened and the public conscience begins to change.

The acceptance of two key concepts is what makes this extension inevitable – first it is accepted that there is such a thing as a life not worth living and second that the active ending of a person’s life is justified in order to lessen the suffering of others.

It was these two principles that were used to justify the killing an infant with limb abnormalities and congenital blindness (named Knauer) with parental consent by Dr Karl Brandt in neighbouring Germany in 1939.

This 'test-case' paved the way for the registration of all children under three years of age with 'serious hereditary diseases'. This information was then used by a panel of 'experts', including three medical professors (who never saw the patients), to authorise death by injection or starvation of some 6,000 children by the end of the Second World War.

The euthanasia programme in Nazi Germany, later headed by the same Karl Brandt, did not begin in prison camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka. It began far more subtly with doctors in hospitals and its very first victims were children who were killed on supposedly compassionate grounds.

It is bitterly ironic that child euthanasia is happening again seventy years later on the very same grounds in two countries that share a common border with Germany. 

This post has been republished on Life News and LifeSite News 

For ten year report on Euthanasia in Belgium see here.

Stunning 5,000% increase in Belgian euthanasia cases in eleven years since legalisation

I have previously highlighted the rapid escalation of euthanasia and assisted suicide cases in the Netherlands, Oregon and Switzerland in recent years but Belgium is eclipsing all of these countries in the race to become the ‘world leader’.

In 2012, the number of euthanasia cases in Belgium increased by 25%, from 2011 reaching a record level of 1,432 since the practice was legalized in the country in 2002 (original source here).

The Federal Control and Evaluation euthanasia (FCEE), in publishing the data, is now considering to extend the right to citizens who suffer from degenerative mental illnesses like Alzheimer’s and also children.

A recent FCEE report on euthanasia in Belgium on 2010 and 2011, unfortunately available only in French, details the longer term trends since legalisation.

The upper line in the graph above is the total of euthanasia cases reported to the commission and shows an increase from 24 cases in 2002 to 1,133 in 2011 – a stunning overall increase of 4,620% in just ten years! If we include the 1,432 figure for 2012 the increase is well over 5,000% in eleven years. Even if we count it from the first full year (2003), the increase is still over 500%.

The middle line in the graph above is the number of cases reported in Dutch (so by Dutch speaking medical doctors) and the bottom line is the number of cases reported in French (Walloon part and Brussels). So it seems that euthanasia is performed mostly in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium (Flanders).

It is important to note that only acts which intentionally end life using barbiturates (Article 2 of the law on euthanasia) meet the legal definition of legal euthanasia so these figures do not include people killed by deliberate overdosage with morphine, withdrawal of treatment with explicit aim of ending life or ‘terminal sedation’ with the aim of hastening death.

We know from the Netherlands that these other ways of ending life have also increased dramatically in recent years.

Over the last two years 75% of euthanasia cases in Belgium were for cancer (including all malignancies), 7% were for progressive neuromuscular disorders (multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, etc) and 18% were for ‘other conditions’.  

69% of euthanasia were performed in patients aged 40-79 years and 27% in patients older than 79 years.

194 cases over the two years (9%) involved patients whose deaths were ‘not foreseeable in the short term’ and 2% of cases involved unconscious patients who had earlier signed advance directives.

In the vast majority of cases (99%), death was produced by inducing deep unconsciousness first with barbiturates (usually thiopental ) followed by an IV injection of a paralyzing muscle relaxant (usually norcuron or tracium).

The Committee in its report emphasized the importance of ‘easy availability of products needed for euthanasia’ and considered that the medical school curriculum and postgraduate education sessions should include training on ‘the proper implementation of euthanasia’ .

It seems that euthanasia has now been accepted as part of normal medical care in Belgium.

The lessons are clear. Once euthanasia is legalised steady escalation follows along with a change in the social conscience so that it rapidly becomes accepted as normal.

With new bills about to be debated in the Westminster and Scottish parliaments Britain should take warning. 

Belgium becomes world leader in organ removal after euthanasia as Oxford academics suggest the practice could generate 2,200 more organs a year in UK

According to a recent report Belgium is now the ‘world leader’ in organ removal after euthanasia.

The practice of transplanting organs from voluntary euthanasia patients in this small European country has become increasingly common since it was first reported that it had become an established procedure in June 2011.

The recent report mentions at least nine cases since 2005 but suggests that there would have been many more had the patients had transplantable organs.

Only a small proportion of euthanised patients are able to donate organs, since most of them are terminally ill with cancer and therefore regarded to be ‘unsuitable’ as donors.

Two Oxford academics last year argued that ‘organ donation euthanasia’ would be ‘a rational improvement over current practice regarding withdrawal of life support’, would ‘increase patient autonomy ‘ and ‘would give individuals the greatest chance of being able to help others with their organs after death’.

In a paper published in the journal Bioethics, Julian Savulescu (pictured) and Dominic Wilkinson, argued that such an approach is ethical:

‘Why should surgeons have to wait until the patient has died as a result of withdrawal of advanced life support or even simple life prolonging medical treatment? An alternative would be to anaesthetize the patient and remove organs, including the heart and lungs. Brain death would follow removal of the heart (call this Organ Donation Euthanasia (ODE))…. Organs would be more likely to be viable, since they would not have sustained a period of reduced circulation prior to retrieval. More organs would be available (for example the heart and lungs, which are currently rarely available in the setting of DCD). Patients and families could be reassured that their organs would be able to help other individuals as long as there were recipients available, and there were no contraindications to transplantation.’

They estimate that although ‘it is difficult to estimate the effect of introducing ODE on overall organ donation rates’ that ‘it could be up to an additional 2,201 organs per year in the UK’.

Professor Savulescu is no stranger to controversy. He has previously defended the publication of an article defending infanticide for disabled newborns, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, for which he is editor.

I suspect a lot of readers will be genuinely shocked by these revelations. But in fact ‘organ donation euthanasia’ follows logically from the acceptance of both euthanasia and the harvesting of organs from beating heart donors. It is, after all, happening already in Belgium.

I wonder how long it will be before elderly people who have ‘already had a good life’ start being eyed up by those with organ failure who are not yet ready to die and being accused covertly, or overtly, of selfishness for being unwilling to hand their fresh healthy organs over.

Given that one third of euthanasia cases in Belgium are already involuntary I wonder if any patients have yet had their organs harvested without their consent because someone had ‘greater need’ of them?

Once we start believing that it is admissible to kill people and that some lives are more worth living than others these kinds of developments will inevitably follow.

It sounds like another good reason to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia here in Britain. 

Fresh warning sounded to UK as euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in Belgium in just one year

Things are moving at a frightening pace in Belgium. 

Further to my recent ten year review in December and report on the twins’ euthanasia case that made international headlines in January Alex Schadenberg has just published the following review on Belgium’s 2012 figures just out. 

I’ve reproduced it here from his blog.

Recent studies concerning the Belgian euthanasia law found that: 32% of the assisted deaths are done without request and 47% of the assisted deaths go unreported in the Flanders region of Belgium. Another recent study found that even though nurses are prohibited from doing euthanasia, that in fact nurses are euthanizing their patients in Belgium. There has never been an attempted prosecution for abuses of the Belgian euthanasia law.

Confirming that euthanasia is out-of-control in Belgium the 2012 euthanasia statistics indicate that there was a 25% increase in the number of assisted deaths in Belgium.

Recent government statistics indicate that the number of reported assisted deaths increased from 1133 in 2011 to 1432 in 2012, representing 2% of all deaths in Belgium. The number of reported assisted deaths inBelgium in 2010 was 954. It is important to note that these statistics do not include the unreported assisted deaths.

The study that found that 32% of the assisted deaths are done without request, indicated that the people who died by euthanasia without request were usually: incompetent, did not have cancer, were over the age of 80, and living in a hospital. The same study indicated that these deaths represented "a vulnerable patient group."

Further to that doctors who admit to not reporting assisted deaths usually do not follow the guidelines of the Belgian law. A recent study found that 73.1 % of the reported assisted deaths followed the guidelines while only 12.3% of the unreported assisted deaths followed the euthanasia guidelines in the Belgian law.

The response by Belgian legislators to the abuses of the euthanasia law is to widen the definitions of the law to include children with disabilities and people with dementia. By widening the definitions in the law, fewer doctors will be abusing the law. It is also feared that the proposed changes to the euthanasia law may effect the freedom of conscience for health care workers in Belgium.

The proposed changes to the Belgium euthanasia law, combined with the lack of attempted prosecutions for abusing the Belgium euthanasia law, in conjunction with the massive increases in the number of euthanasia deaths, indicates that a slippery slope, also known as incremental extensions, has occurred in Belgium.

If you think that is bad enough, consider the fact that a woman with anorexia nervosarecently died by euthanasia, a man wrote that his depressed mother died by euthanasia, belgian twins who were born deaf were euthanized out of fear of blindness, and Belgium is experimenting with euthanasia/organ donation.

A recent 10 year report of the Belgian euthanasia law that was done by the European Institute of Bioethics found:

• A written declaration of a desire for euthanasia is required, either by the patient or a surrogate. However, the Commission often waives this obligation. 

• Initially patients had to have a life‐threatening and incurable illness. Nowadays, the illness need only be serious and debilitating. 

• The pain is supposed to be unbearable, unremitting and unrelievable. However, a patient can refuse medication to relieve the pain. The Commission, says the IEB, has ‘decided not to carry out its mission ‐ so central to the law ‐ of verifying the unbearable and unrelievable nature of the suffering’. 

• The ambit of ‘psychological suffering’ is ever-expanding. 

• Doctor-assisted suicide is not authorised by 2002 legislation. However, the Commission has ignored this and regularly signs off on such cases. 

• If a patient is to be euthanised at home, the doctor himself is supposed to fetch the lethal medications at a pharmacy from a registered pharmacist and to return left-over drugs. In practice, family members often get the drugs; unqualified personnel hand them over; and no checks have ever been made about surplus drugs.’ 

To learn more about the current practice and abuses of the Belgian and Netherlands euthanasia laws, by ordering the book, by Alex Schadenberg ($20 includes shipping): Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Exposing Vulnerable People will prepare you to oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) hopes that Belgian legislators will open their eyes to the reality of their euthanasia experiment and reverse their direction. If not, we hope that the rest of the world will recognize how dangerous legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide is and how it threatens the lives of their citizens.