David, thank you for responding.

Having worked in the Health system for some 32 years I've seen the invaluable care and support that pastoral care workers and palliative care provides patients AND their families. It will remain the only care that the vast majority of dying people will require.

Patients and their families have taught me that, just like a birth, a death is just never quite like it was expected or imagined. My experience has been that more often than not the dying person has come to acceptance and peace. Depressing is not a word that comes to mind in the presence of a person near death. But some aspects of their journey can certainly be so.

I mentioned the slippery slope because this is the most often used and strongest argument against euthanasia. As it is with issues like abortion. The cases you site as reasons why euthanasia should not be allowed were used in the debate in the Netherlands to demonstrate that very strict guidelines need to be laid down and that they will need to be reviewed regularly.

You can accuse me of many things but not of only sourcing information from pro euthanasia groups. I've provided links to several sources not sympathetic to my viewpoint.

The reason why so much is known publicly about what happens in the Netherlands, also in the case of infants with severe disabilities, is because serious issues like this are vigorously scrutinized and discussed. That is why the Netherlands is the only country where you will actually be able to get 'figures' on any of these issues.

Not so Australia. What happens here is the stuff of secrets. Secrets and semantics.

Calling for legislation, or as is the case in the Netherlands, decriminalization, of physician assisted suicide is NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons.

It is not even forcing a philosophy or belief on any individual physician.

Runner,
The vast majority of doctors are ethical, well-trained, caring and responsible people.
Doctors, who are willing to perform euthanasia, receive special training in this area because they will have access to euthanatica.

Bronwyn,
Fair enough, I do see your points and it’s good to be cautious and look at all the negatives. I personally find that the positives far outweigh the negatives especially since not having euthanasia legalised/decriminalised has negatives as well. E.g. ”Australian 'euthanasia tourists' snap up vet drugs in Mexico”
http://tinyurl.com/4r5u2o

David,
Whether or not a country has legal euthanasia available as an option for medical reasons is irrelevant to the euthanasia debate because these deaths, that are falling outside the framework of euthanasia in the Netherlands, happen all over the world- not just in countries that have decriminalised/legalised euthanasia.

For example, The Groningen Protocol is not about euthanasia- they’re separate rules.
While I don’t find it unethical to end the life of a severely ill, suffering and dieing baby such as these cases, ( http://tinyurl.com/4lhxqu “Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’.”) doctors all over the world are struggling with the same issues and the same thing happens in countries that outlaw euthanasia, too.
( http://tinyurl.com/5wprqf , One-third of doctors would hasten death of ill newborn. )

The fact that it happens without having a name like the Groningen Protocol doesn’t make it disappear- people who deny that it is happening are in denial. As Yvonne said, it all happens in secret.

Without euthanasia laws there is no clear line about the consent of patients who receive an overdose of morphine.

Yvonne said, “We must have this debate openly and freely...”
Exactly, and this indeed is what’s usually happening with controversial issues in the Netherlands. Discussion provokes thought, challenges ideas, invites criticism, forms new perspectives and eventually, sometimes, updates laws.
If something happens secretly in practice, then why not address it through open debate?

David, just so that I know there is a point of discussing slippery-slope arguments, would you, hypothetically, approve of voluntary euthanasia if you were satisfied that the restrictions would remain in place?

David,

These are the numbers from the CBS in 2005: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71439ned&D1=a&D2=a&D3=a&HD=080626-0828&HDR=T&STB=G2,G1

I have translated the top row for the non dutch speakers below.

total deaths in 2005: 136402

deaths without end of life decision (MBL) 78391
deaths with end of life decision 58011

Splitting the MBL numbers (58011) further:
Cessation of treatment(NIS) with possibility of death 11056
Palliative care only (PBS), with possibility of death 32229
Palliative care only (PBS), with co-purpose of death 1504
Cessation of treatment(NIS) with purpose of death 10261
Application of substance with purpose of death 2960

Splitting the last number (2960)we have
Euthanasia 2297
Assisted suicide 113
Application of substance without explicit request 551

That gives us a Euthanasia rate of just over 2%. Patients here can refuse treatment too so to include the cessation of treatment or excessive palliative care numbers does not seem right. I'll have a look at the ABS site for comparative Australian numbers tomorrow.

Obviously the 551 number needs some clarification. These figures are reported from death certificates and I doubt that teams of 'murdering doctors' would be so honest. Perhaps Celivia or Yvonne have more info.

The reason the dutch are so open about many controversial issues is not a national apathy but a desire for knowledge and control of activities within dutch society. Euthanasia occurred surreptitiously before the legislation. The new laws keep euthanasia and assisted suicide as illegal but doctors are exempted from prosecution if they follow due process.

You may want to add Peter Singer to your reading list. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al may make a lot of noise but don't speak for all atheists. I suspect there are as many definitions of 'atheist values' as there atheists.

"That gives us a Euthanasia rate of just over 2%."

Interesting figures, gusi, and very useful to the debate. The real figures of interest though would be the comparative trends. Are there any, I wonder? I'm not seriously clued up on this debate so wouldn't know, but I'm sure someone else will.

The euthanasia rate was 2% in 2005; what will the percentage be in 2050? My guess is it will have at least doubled and possibly quite a bit more. We're starting to talk a lot of people here, but the more disturbing aspect is the way this trend will impinge on all older people, irrespective of whether or not they have any intention of exercising the euthanasia option.

I'm sure it's difficult enough growing old and losing the capacity to live as you once did, without the added worry of whether or not you should take the selfless option and opt out of life instead of hanging around and taking up scarce resources. I know this is a heartless way to weigh up the value of a person's life, but this is exactly what entrenched euthanasia will do. It will place an unfair burden on all older people. Elderly people should be able to live out their last years with as little unnecessary worry as possible.

Bronwyn knowing the change in rate of assisted suicides is meaningless. It's a bit like watching the divorce statistics for Australia in the 1970s when no fault divorce became possible. There was an initial spike before the divorce rate settled to its current levels where half the marriages end in divorce.

Assisted suicides and euthanasia will go up if we build a society where health care costs bankrupt families and families will disintegrate under the burdens of high health costs.

Thank you Yvonne for your reply. I was a little sharp with you, apologies

I agree with your comment about the secrecy in Australia over statistics, trends, etc – nowhere is this more so than with abortions.

I think the slippery slope argument, considering the trends I indicated earlier in Holland do give cause for grave concern, especially when we consider the current difficulties Governments have funding the health sector. The argument being pushed for euthanasia is around the feelings and inadequacies of family and friends, when in fact it is the patient’s interest that should be to the fore, but I’m only repeating myself.

If you wish to argue that calling for legislation for physician assisted suicide is NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons, then you and most of the other posters on this thread must accept that in opposing your wish to change the law, I am NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons. It’s that taking prerogatives to oneself and denying the same prerogative to your opponent that I call bigotry.

You say, “It is not even forcing a philosophy or belief on any individual physician”. However, in the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report to the Victorian Government on decriminalisation of abortion whilst a doctor may decline to perform an abortion he is required, even against his conscience, to refer the woman concerned to a doctor who will perform an abortion. So much for your assurance.

Celivia,

I accept your point that some elderly/chronically ill are already being euthanised – one reason why I will be very careful as to from whom I receive care at the close of life (given that I have that choice!). I find it very disconcerting that euthanasia is happening on the quiet, though I understand some of the reasons, one of which is the widespread loss of religious faith – where else at the end of life can you find hope