The Dutch Euthanasia Law

Third Quarter 2002

by Bert P. Dorenbos

The Dutch parliament, under its now departing socialist-liberal government, passed a law two years ago designed to protect doctors from the fear of being prosecuted for committing euthanasia. The law and its consequences remain a topic of hot debate in The Netherlands and around the world. Bert Dorenbos is a long-time critic of euthanasia and abortion. He heads the organization Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life). He can be reached at schreeuw@solcon.nl. The following edited excerpts have been taken from a longer paper by Mr. Dorenbos.—Ed.

The foundation of all law is that every person's life should be protected. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Charter of the United Nations, the UN declaration on children, and other such documents are all based on the firm principle that life should be protected. No one has a right to kill someone else. Killing cannot be a medical treatment. History is clear from the ancient days of Hippocrates to twentieth-century Nazi doctors that medical professionals violate their own oath if they use their skills to kill a person.

The Dutch discussion leading up to passage of the euthanasia law was carried forward not from the perspective of the patient but from the perspective of the doctor. Government-conducted research indicated that 60 percent of doctors did not report euthanasia cases to the municipal pathologist out of fear of being prosecuted for violating the Dutch Criminal Code. Article 293 of that code makes clear that to kill someone is a crime. And if someone kills another person at that person's request, the punishment can be as much as twelve years in prison. Parliament then decided to amend article 293 of the Criminal Code to exclude doctors from imprisonment if they kill their patients in accord with Section 2 of the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act."

Making Law Subjective

This change in the law is a dramatic change from the objective rule that no one is allowed to terminate the life of another person. By excluding medical doctors, the Criminal Code has become subjective. There is now the possibility that in possibility the future other people will also be excluded from potential prosecution. With this change in the code the protection of every person's life has been made subject to subjective judgment. Now medical doctors can no longer be seen as the fierce protectors of human life. They must decide in each situation whether to accept or reject someone's request to be killed.

As a consequence of this law, parliament appointed a regional committee composed of an ethicist, a lawyer, and a medical specialist to judge euthanasia cases on their legal merits in order to encourage doctors to report such cases. The results, after two years, however, are that contrary to expectation no increase in doctor's reports has occurred. In fact, it appears that an even higher percentage of doctors are not reporting cases. It is, of course, against all logical reasoning that public authorities should make it easier for potential criminals to commit a crime or that they should expect a criminal to report his or her own crime. The assumption behind the law is that doctors can be trusted not to misuse their skills to kill. But trust of this kind can never be the foundation of law. Trust has to be proven by evidence and, if needed, by law enforcement. The result of distancing the doctor from the prosecutor is simply that the rights of the patient are endangered or diminished. The change in the Dutch Criminal Code thus makes it possible for the doctor to misuse his practice. What is wrong with the law is that in trying to protect the doctor the rights of the patient have been ignored.

The text of "Due Care Criteria" of the euthanasia act, Chapter II, Section 2 states that the attending physician must:

a. be convinced that the patient has made a voluntary and carefully considered request (to be killed);

b. be convinced that the patient's suffering is unbearable and that there are no prospects of improvement;

c. have informed the patient about his or her situation and prospects;

d. have come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative in the light of the patient's situation;

e. have consulted with at least one other, independent physician, who must have seen the patient and have given a written opinion on the due care criteria; and

f. have terminated the patient's life or provided assistance with suicide with due medical care and attention.

Legal Nonsense

Now, my first comment on this law is that contrary to common legal practice, it assumes that the person who may have committed a crime will report that crime to the newly established regional committee. Second, by the time of any such report, the patient—in this case the victim—is dead. The victim will not be able to testify that the doctor is either telling the truth or lying. And third, all the criteria listed above (a-f) speak about the doctor's responsibility. The doctor has to fill out the forms and answer the questions, but the patient is dead. None of these criteria is objective. The only objective fact by the time of a review process is that the doctor has killed the patient. There is nothing here that even defines what a patient is. In fact, a person who requests euthanasia can never be a patient, because euthanasia is not a medical treatment. A doctor's patient may indeed ask for euthanasia, but someone other than a patient could also ask to be assisted in death.

The conclusion is quite clear: there is no way to make the "due care criteria" objective. And if judgments about life and death have become subjective, every life is in principle subject to shifting rules and measures by an existing government. If, by contrast, life is a given and no one has the right to kill, then the Dutch euthanasia law is very dangerous. For example, the demographic developments in more and more countries around the world show that the population replacement level is already too low to sustain the population. Moreover, the percentage of elderly people is increasing. If the practice of euthanasia is permitted, then the dangers can be anticipated. With the growing cost of healthcare, its financing becomes more and more difficult. Elderly people and those with a "low quality" of life are likely to receive inadequate medical care. Medical teams operating under the permission of the Dutch euthanasia law will more and more easily make decisions about whom to treat and whom to kill. Patients will not know whether the doctor is coming to treat them or to kill them. In a society where killing becomes an option, everyone's life is in danger.

Suffering Can't be Banned

Euthanasia is also an attempt to get rid of suffering. In fact it is promoted this way. Those against euthanasia are portrayed as fundamentalists and brutal people who are willing to extend suffering rather than accept the merciful killing of those who suffer. It is quite obvious, however, that it is impossible to ban suffering from society. After the fall into sin, suffering belongs to humankind. One day it will be vanished when God's new order of righteousness and justice arrives. But for now, the answer to suffering is not killing the patient, but caring for the patient. If the doctor cannot cure the patient, the time has come to care for the patient. Palliative care becomes urgent for the dying. The hospice movement in England is an excellent example of how to care for a patient so he or she can die in dignity.

Euthanasia, seen in a broader context, is part of the hedonistic, egoistic, materialistic mindset by which humans think they have the right to decide about anything they want. This leads to a society in which people think of themselves first. When humans drift away from the universal principles of love, righteousness and justice, then life is at stake. To resist euthanasia is therefore to resist the deterioration of society. We increasingly face the threat that only those who are strong will live, that only the fittest will survive. Euthanasia is a Darwinist, evolutionary principle.

By contrast, the true basis of human life is that the strong should take care of the weak, from conception to the grave. Humans are crying for a way out of suffering, death, and meaninglessness, often not knowing where to turn. The fight for life creates a mission field, because life is life only in the eternal perspective of the new heaven and new earth. During the apocalyptic times through which we are living, it is clear that killing humans at any point between conception and death is a brutal offense against the Creator of life. Without doubt, the judgment of such a killing society will come. Only through repentance and living in the expectation of the Lord's eternal kingdom is there a way of life on the way to life.