From the Land Where Euthanasia has Been Legal for Some Time

Considering that the Netherlands legalized euthanasia a while ago a recent survey is telling about the effect that legislated killing has had on the mindset of Dutch doctors:

How much can on-line polls be trusted? Not much. An on-line poll about euthanasia? Even less. However, in view of the sketchy state of information about euthanasia in the first country to legalise it, any poll is welcome. The EinVandaag website in the Netherlands surveyed general practitioners in the last week in July and found that Dutch doctors support it, though sometimes reluctantly. (The number of official notifications of deaths by euthanasia rose 13% to 2,636 in 2009, although many deaths are apparently not reported.)

Here is what the poll of 800 doctors found. The vast majority – 87% -- were willing in principle to participate in legal euthanasia. About 68% said that they had participated in euthanasia in the last 5 years. Of these, 29% did it once; 25% twice; 33% 3 to 5 times; and 11% more than 5 times.

This information was featured on Mercantornet.com. I wonder if this isn't a glimpse of where the mindset of doctors in America will be in the near future. The killing of the disabled and terminally ill is becoming sadly more accepted.

Snake Oil Sale of Euthanasia for the Elderly and The Suffering from Dementia

Over on Mercatornet there is an excellent article that exposes the slick salesmanship of euthanasia salesmen like Philip Nitschke.  We of course can't forget that eugenic storm trooper the Baroness Warnock. Here is a sample to whet your appetite:

Think about it: if euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal do you really think that the excellent, but often expensive and sometimes time-consuming, treatments that are now available to us will stand as a genuine option if there’s a cheaper, easier solution? Sure, perhaps no one you know would be as callous to suggest to an ailing relative that they’d be better off dead, but subtly in those circumstances people may well come to feel it their duty to die. That was certainly the opinion of the UK’s Baroness Warnock when, a few years ago, she had the audacity to tell an assembly of elderly dementia sufferers that they were an unacceptable expense on the public purse and they had a “duty to die”. Euthanasia and assisted suicide limit choice, not Alzheimer’s or dementia.

Cowardly Compassion and Caring

I checked recently for responses to my comment on the Compassion and Caring blog in response to Dan Hankinson's recent blog post. To my surprise, I found that the imbeciles at C and C had removed my comment. So much for their alleged support for freedom. That is, unless the freedom you seek is to murder yourself.

This proves that the folks are at C and C truly are cowards..

Compassion and Caring Got It Wrong

Compassion and Caring is the new name of the old Hemlock Society. They advocate and lobby for laws permitting assisted suicide.

Dustin Hankinson recently wrote:

The Death with Dignity law sets out a detailed process under which only terminally ill patients, meaning those with a diagnosis of less than six months to live, qualify. Furthermore, those individuals must be deemed mentally and psychologically competent by two separate physicians.
There is no room for error or slope-slipping, as it is the patient who has to pursue this option for themselves.

I posted a response to this article suggesting that Mr. Hankinson check the recent history of the Netherlands and Oregon. Supposed safeguards in the law have not prevented involuntary euthanasia from happening. Perfectly healthy people who were depressed were given the medical means to murder themselves.

The slippery slope is very much a real danger.  

God Bless the Bishop

Bischop von Galen

I would like to honor Catholic Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen.  The good bishop had the courage to speak out against the Nazi's murder of the handicapped and disabled through the Akton T-4 program. May God raise up more men and women like him.

Deadly Down Syndrome

At the conclusion of World War II a serious of legal trials were held in Germany. Certain members of the Nazi party were charged with crimes against humanity. The defendants were active participants in government sanctioned genocide of Jews, the mentally ill, and other humans the Nazi's deemed as undeserving of life. Part of Nazi society included a program referred to as Akton T-4. Under this program the mentally disabled, and handicapped were systematically rounded up and murdered. People at the time were aghast to learn of this sanctioned program.

Today there is a new genocide that may be eagerly recommended to expecting parents. This genocide is against unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Doctors are able to run tests that are supposed to predict the likelihood of babies being born with Down Syndrome. According to the website Disaboom.com it is estimated that 80% of mothers who are told of the strong possibility of delivering a Down Syndrome baby will opt to kill the child through abortion.

The rationale for all of this is apparently a desire to not raise a less than perfect child who may require more than normal care. A study conducted in 2000 found that 25% of doctors who explained prenatal test results indicating the possiblity of Down Syndrome delivered the news with a negative spin or actively encouraged parents to murder the child through abortion. This is ethnic cleansing at its finest. It is also evidence that the eugenic movement did not end with the defeat of the Nazis. This eugenic mindset is not found behind the banner of a swastika. Rather, it is more subtle and as a result dangerous.

America has quickly joined Cambodia with killing fields of our own. Our killing fields are not managed by Khmer Rouge cadres, but rather medical professionals who most of us look to as the protectors of life.

Compassionate Murder

Slogans are Not Logical Arguments!

The longer I live the more convinced I become that pro-death advocates are incapable of making or following a logical argument. These advocates, among others, have taken to using sloganeering in place of marshaling arguments. Buzzwords have now replaced the syllogism. The benefits of buzzword sloganeering is that it requires little to no thought to produce a response in most readers.

The most misused buzzword by euthanasia advocates is compassion. Compassion conjures up images of care, love, and sympathy. The rub is when it is used to describe the act of murdering someone and ending his/her life prematurely. I can't recall a time when the concept of murder has ever been considered compassionate. Our laws require that murders be punished, but not lauded as loving or kind.

People may grow tired of reading me call euthanasia murder, but that is exactly what it is. Compassion, mercy, and care have little to do with the rightness or wrongness of this practice. It has always been and always will be a immoral action regardless of the volume of slogans used to justify it.

HHH