reply to post by Malcher
Thank you for your contributions to this thread. You dug up some pretty scary info indeed.
Doctors and Hospital Boards are increasingly winning Court battles that give them the right to withdraw and withhold treatment from disabled and
terminally ill patients. Those opposed to EAS believe that this is happening for economic reasons. Individual autonomy has increasingly given way to
decision-making by health care professionals and bioethicists, whose "futile care theory" measures the value of human life according to the
financial cost of keeping the individual alive. In Holland where euthanasia is legal many people now carry anti-euthanasia passports' because they
are afraid they may be killed if admitted to hospital.
I will be unraveling this piece right here with a couple of findings I made. I'm afraid little of the above is actually true. First there is the
basic law of the medical field
. It states that a doctor by law has two duties towards a patient:
1. To ease or take away suffering
2. To keep a patient alive
Especially number 2 contradicts any form of 'involuntary euthanasia'. It simply cannot happen under normal circumstances. Also, budget is never an
issue when it comes to saving a life, since rule 2 is more powerful than any budget. If it is physically possible to keep the patient among the
living, it shall be done.
These basics apply at all times, except in cases of active euthanasia
and passive euthanasia
With active euthanasia
the patient (almost always terminally ill) will request her doctor death by injection. A doctor may comply if he is
convinced of the following parameters:
- This is a voluntary, well-thought-out decision
- The patient is determined
- The patient experiences intolerable suffering with no end in sight,
He also always needs to consult a second doctor and confirm that this second doctor is also convinced of the parameters mentioned above.
There is also a law in The Netherlands that gives people the possibility to make a Future Euthanasia Request. This enables people to put on record the
will to be actively euthanized
given very specific circumstances where it is not sure if the patient is determined. An example is suffering
from a severe blood cloth in the brain that renders one paralyzed and unable to speak or otherwise communicate. In these cases the Future Euthanasia
Request is to be consulted. If none exists, euthanasia cannot happen.
In cases of passive euthanasia
, a person simply refuses to be treated any longer. A doctor always has to respect this decision, for the rules
only apply to patients and the person refuses to be a patient.
Source in Dutch, sorry.
The text also mentions an Anti-Euthanasia-Passport. I googled this and got squat. Googling for an Euthanasia-Passport however, gave me some
In the Netherlands there is something called a Euthanasia-Passport. It is a card complete with photo and signature to alert doctors of your wish not
to be medically treated/kept alive in certain situations. This is a portable extension of the Life Testament, an official document in which one can
write up a request to respect his/her will for passive euthanasia
in cases in which he or she cannot communicate this. In other words: do not
Source in Dutch, sorry.
So if you do not have a Future Euthanasia Request or a Life Testament/Euthanasia-Passport, you will never be euthanized. And if you do, then it was
your choice all along. Therefore, there is no such thing as involuntary euthanisation.