New 'Mercy Killing' Rules Netherlands?

[Rick van Opbergen]

Dutch ponder 'mercy killing' rules
Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 1:28 AM EST (0628 GMT)

The Netherlands has already legalized euthanasia.

(CNN) - Dutch health officials are considering guidelines doctors could follow for euthanizing terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and patients in irreversible comas. Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia - ending the life of someone suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, with their approval.

In recent years there also have been reports of mercy killings of terminally ill babies, and officials at one hospital say a number have been carried out there. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has asked the Netherlands Ministry of Health to create an independent board to evaluate euthanasia cases for each category of people "with no free will."

Doctors now follow legal standards regarding euthanasia, or assisted suicide, for patients who are able to make such a decision on their own. Under the rules established by KNMG and the Dutch courts, the patient's decision must be freely made, well-considered and persistent; there must be unbearable suffering; and the attending physician should consult with a colleague.

There are no official guidelines for ending the lives of those who are unable to make their own decision, such as in the case of a baby, but Groningen Academic Hospital has conducted such procedures under its own, internal guidelines. Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital's pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious "(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death."

"They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada." That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings. Because the procedure was not legal, Verhagen said, the hospital preferred that cases be assessed by a committee of experts. The Dutch parliament legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002.

"What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight," the doctor said.

Eric Van Yijlick, project manager for SCEN (Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands), said the Groningen cases involving newborns should be referred to as "life ending without request" rather than euthanasia, because that term indicates the dying party has requested the procedure.Van Yijlick said that to his knowledge, the killing of newborns is not common - just a few cases yearly. No official statistics exist on terminally ill children's lives being terminated, he said.

source: www.cnn.com

What is your opinion about this? The poll CNN conducted on this subject shows that a slight majority of the correspondents - 51% - is in favor of these rules, and 49% is not.

 

[peapod]

That is a hard one ricky, on one hand I can understand it, but on the other human nature being what it is, I think it would be abused, maybe not in the netherlands, but I think I would be in the west. I voted no, but I am not really sure. Something would have to be in place to make it fool proof for me.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

I don't know either peapod. I discussed this with my father, and he warned about the following: how do you know when it is the right thing to do? When a baby is terminally ill, how can you make the decision it's better to commit euthanasia? Are the parents going to regret that decision? What if they could have enjoyed their child for months more than they expected? What about that thought? It's all very confusing, and abuse is just so nearby.

 

[peapod]

Yes I know what you mean. A great ponder, and one not taken lightly.

 

[Twila]

I voted yes, but would have liked a "maybe" or "yes, but with considerations" options.

Even with the free will the patient has to inject themselves or take the pill themselves. No assistance is given. This would change for those patients.....

Hospitals here practice something similar. Heavily medicating people until they pass. Morphine assisted passing, if you will

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

I don't totally understand what you mean here Twila. People with no free will, like terminally ill babies, can't inject themselves can they? Or are you just pointing at those who do have the free will?

 

[Twila]

I was pointing out those who have free will. Why was I pointing that out? I have no idea. Must have been the 5 cups of coffee I'd ingested.

That or my brain took a mini vacation and forgot to inform the rest of me. lol

I'm sure at the time I knew why I was pointing it out. But today is a different day.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Haha well I don't mind

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New 'Mercy Killing' R

I'm not sure if it's approriate to this or not, but when they revived my Grandma and drove her down to Regina to let her die slowly and painfully in their full care. I guess it was to let my uncles all see her before she croaked.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

And what were your thoughts when that happened?

 

[JDream]

Hmmm..

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New 'Mercy Killing' R

I'm not sure I can express my feelings when that happened, ricky. An edited version might read like, What the **** is wrong with you ******** ****** how brutally ******* selfish are you? That's kind of mild compared to the way I really felt though.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

I see. Have you also said that to them?

 

[LadyC]

I don't believe in euthanizing anyone. Too many mistakes can be made. When it's my time, I'd prefer to let nature take its course. This means no heroic measures. My Granny died at home, and she had a chance to see everyone beforehand. Oddly, the doctors balked at letting Mum give her morphine to ease the pain, as they were afraid she'd become dependent. So what if she did? She was terminal!

My niece was a 25 week premie. The doctor actually gave the nurses hell for treating her - he wanted to just let her die. Now, I understand the odds were against her, but today she's a happy healthy 15 year old.

Instead of legalizing euthanasia, we should increase palliative care - ease the dying process. Let it happen naturally. Quit keeping the terminal patients alive. My Gramma spent her last days saying her good byes. Had she been drugged up that wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Instead of legalizing euthanasia, we should increase palliative care - ease the dying process. Let it happen naturally. Quit keeping the terminal patients alive. My Gramma spent her last days saying her good byes. Had she been drugged up that wouldn't have been possible.

I respect your opinion but don't you think that this is not always the case? There are people who are terminally ill and suffer a lot of pain. How can we ease the dying process for them, while you seem to object to "drugging up" these patients? What if there's the wish from a terminally ill patient to end his or her life before he or she will suffer great pains?

 

[LadyC]

I was writing that post quickly - never a good idea.

I believe in pain-relieving meds. What I meant in my Gramma's case was the ones that basically keep the patient in a coma-like state, where they can't communicate at all - they're just being kept alive.

Dying is a natural part of life. We should be looking at ways of easing the process, not merely delaying it.

 

[moghrabi]

As long as there is a sign of life and a heart beating in a person, they must be kept alive by any means other than comatosing them. Eventually they will go. I don't think they any pain nowadays since they are so much drugged. We feel more pain for them than they feel it.

Any form of killing (mercy or not), is still killing.

Again, this is only my opinion.

 

[Cosmo]

Interesting debate, and one I have thought about for a long time. My current opinions on it are not set in stone so reading both sides of the debate here is most helpful to me. I voted "yes" to the poll.

At the moment, I believe in it. I think it's all about quality of life. The grey area, to my mind, occurs in determining "quality of life". I have met people with mental dysfunction so severe they are only a step up from a turnip, but have seen these people laugh, love and take delight in things. To me, they have a better quality of life than some of your average, everyday John Q. Publics.

Personally, I carry a DNR on me. When I had my Harley, I did ride without helmet whenever I could get away with it and thought it only fair not to burden the healthcare system if I crashed and was damaged as a result of my actions. It seemed the only responsible thing to do. I continue to carry the DNR because I have very strong feelings about being kept alive beyond my capacity to enjoy my life. I don't want to be hooked up to machines, be left in a coma, etc. but neither do I think it fair to burden my family with the decision to "pull the plug" should it come to that.

The question came up for me about 15 years ago when a close friend of mine had a son dying of a rare form of cancer. This child became sick at 2 years old and was in and out of remission until he finally died at 6. When the final relapse hit, the child's mother opted not to apply treatment. Talk about controversial. I think she was right. Part of it was because she consulted the child. Even at that young age, he comprehended death (had spent enough time in the children's hospital to understand it) and had a full understanding of the painful treatment that was his option. He pleaded with his mother to just let him "be with the angels". Pretty persuasive argument in my book.

The article cited here is about people lacking the free will to make the decision, though. That complicates the issue further. At first glance, my reaction is that a newborn child relies on a parent or doctor implicitly. Whoever is in the position to make other life decisions for the baby should be given the right to make this decision as well. The question is how do we quantify the suffering, and when is it intolerable?

In my line of logic, it comes down to the lesser evil. Is death preferable to exteme suffering? Personally, I say yes.

Of course there's the other side of it ... last year I sat at the bedside of a dear friend of mine who way dying of AIDs. He was in a coma but his will to live was enormous. He resisted death to the absolute end. Ending his life would have been unquestionably wrong. Perhaps he was not suffering, though, since they did have him pumped full of pain meds to combat the symptoms.

As I said in the first paragraph, I'm not entirely committed to either view, even though I do lean toward "yes". I'm looking forward to hearing others views.

 

[peapod]

Cosmos I remember Rhonda's son, he suffered so much for being just a little boy, but Rhonda opted for every treatment there was, but in the end he was going to die anyway, he endured enough for someone so young, it was his choice not someone elses.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Thanks for your post Cosmo, that was a really good post in my opinion. Euthanasia is always a difficult subject to talk about. It's still controversial here in the Netherlands, although certain forms have been legalized. I think there are a lot of examples in which euthanasia has proved to be "the right thing", by the wish of the patients and the family. There have also been examples in which the patient wanted to die but the family opposed that - a difficult situation. The main question therefore seems to be: are the advantages greater than the disadvantages?