The Often Untold Truth About Dutch Euthanasia
When I read the transcript of this puff radio report from the Netherlands on the 5th anniversary of the formal legalization of euthanasia in that country (it has actually been permitted since 1973), I saw red. Dr. Herbert Hendin, has pointed out in his fine book Seduced by Death, that Dutch doctors and media are often not candid within the Netherlands about the actuality of Dutch euthanasia, being more concerned with maintaining social cohesion on the issue and not hurting the euthanasia cause. On page 112 (paperback version), for example, Hendin writes:
Virtually all of those who have played a role in advancing the cause of euthanasia on humanitarian grounds were concerned about the problems in its implementation, yet they seemed disinclined to express their doubts publicly. Rene Diekstra, for example, had written an article on assisted suicide for an English medical journal that contradicted everything he said to me...I asked if he too was motivated [like another doctor about whom Hendin writes] by political considerations in muting his criticism. He admitted he was.But it was when I saw that one of the Dutch euthanasia doctors quoted in the report was Dr. Bert Keizer, a nursing home doctor who wrote chillingly about the experience of killing patients in Dancing With Mr. D, that I knew I had to hit the keyboard. The result is on line over at First Things, which you can read by hitting this link.


7 Comments:
Those quotataions from Keizer's book are horrifying. The one where he sends the guy to the vicar. Then the vicar tells him, "It's okay. He knows what has to be done. He knows what he wants." What "has to be done"? So the vicar has made the patient feel that what has to be done is that he has to die. Some vicar.
As a Christian, it's my position that these guys are seriously endangering their own souls, even if they don't think they have them. The vicar, especially.
Even under "choice" ideals, the guy clearly was ambivalent and the pressure from Keizer/vicar was in one direction.
This from a reader of the article: "It does not follow that one man's account of his apparent (assuming Mr. Smith's extracts are truly reflective of the whole book) practices indicts a whole movement."
"Those we would kill, we must first dehumanize—or at least, we must divorce ourselves from their humanity."
So Wesley, does this mean you are against the death penalty?
Similarly, wouldn't the death penalty be the first step on the slippery slope of all the evils you abhor?
Before 9/11 I was against the DP. I have wrestled with the issue afterwards.
But that issue isn't about intrinsic value of these prisoners as human beings, but the proper punishment for the worst behavior of criminals. For example, I would oppose using condemned prisoners as research subjects--a desire of Kevorkian, by the way.
Those excerpts from Dr. Keizer's book were truly disturbing.
Sorry Wesley, I don't see the difference. In that article, you wrote this statement:
Those we would kill, we must first dehumanize.
On its face, it seems that DP involves dehumanizing prisoners as they are killed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home