Search

In 2016 a Parliamentary Committee in Victoria, Australia, recommended the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Its report was deeply flawed. Its treatment of key objections to legalization, both principled and practical, was superficial and selective. The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, passed by the Victorian Parliament in November 2017, is built on the report's shaky foundations., (Copyright © 2016 by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc.)

The essay opens with some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium. It proceeds by discussing the Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law, its interpretations and implementation. Finally, the major developments and controversies since the law came into effect are discussed. Suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and circumscribe the practice of euthanasia are made, urging Belgian legislators and the medical establishment to reflect and study so as to prevent potential abuse of vulnerable patients.

This study reports data gathered via extensive interviews with some of the leading authorities on the euthanasia policy that were conducted in the Netherlands. They were asked: It has been argued that the policy and practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands is the result of undeveloped palliative care. What do you think? I also mentioned the fact that there are only a few hospices in the Netherlands. The responses were different and contradictory. Many interviewees agreed with the statement. Almost all of those agreeing with it said that only during the late 1990s were people beginning to admit that there was a need to improve palliative care. Some interviewees insisted that doctors first need to explore other options for helping the patient prior to choosing the course of euthanasia. Other interviewees thought that palliative care is well developed in the Netherlands and that euthanasia has actually paved the way for calling more attention to palliative care.

During the summer of 1999, extensive interviews with some of the leading authorities on euthanasia policy were conducted in the Netherlands. They were asked: Daniel Callahan argues that there is a 'culture of death' in the Netherlands. What do you think? The majority of interviewees disagreed with the statement. They said that the Netherlands is not fundamentally different than other countries. If at all, the Dutch culture is open and tolerant, welcomes debates and plurality of views, and physicians are decent people who wish to help their patients, not to kill them. A small minority acknowledged that there is some truth in Callahan's observations, arguing that the Dutch actually do not welcome critique and are quite conservative in their liberal attitude toward euthanasia.

This article provides a critical analysis of Dutch euthanasia policy and practice. The research benefited from twenty-eight interviews conducted in the Netherlands during the summer of 1999 with some of the leading figures who dictate the decision-making process and take an active part in the debates. The discussion begins with a review of the two major Dutch reports on euthanasia and the conflicting views and interpretations offered by the literature. Next, I provide some data about the interviews, and then analysis indicating that the Dutch Guidelines on the policy and practice of euthanasia do not provide ample mechanisms against abuse. I argue that the Dutch Guidelines are insufficient, do not provide adequate control over the practice of euthanasia, and that the entire policy should be revised and made more coherent and more comprehensive.

The purpose of this article is to explain what has happened in the euthanasia debate in the Australian States and Territories, and to give a more detailed account of how the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws were overturned by the Federal Government. Dr. Fleming begins with a review of euthanasia legislation in each State and Territory, then proceeds with an analysis of the events in the Northern Territory leading to reversal of its euthanasia laws, and includes the effect of the euthanasia law on the Aboriginal people. He concludes that the repeal of the 1995 Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was a significant setback for the pro-euthanasia movement not only in Australia, but worldwide.

In this article, Prof. Darrel Amundsen critiques Judge Reinhardt's comments regarding "Historical Attitudes Toward Suicide" in his Compassion in Dying opinion. Amundsen demonstrates that the court's characterization of ancient Jewish and Christian practices is inaccurate and misleading because it fails to acknowledge the complexities of the moral issue of suicide. Amundsen discusses martyrdom, suicide in general, suicide by the ill, and euthanasia in ancient Judaism. In contrast to the court's commentary, Amundsen demonstrates that regard for human life is a central feature of Jewish ethical monotheism. Furthermore, the author challenges the court's conclusions about early Christianity, and explains why its treatment of the issue of suicide in early Christianity is misleading and inaccurate. Amundsen's discussion of early Christianity includes suicide, martyrdom, and especially the Augustinian teaching on suicide. He concludes that the court's treatment of the issue of suicide in early Christianity is so historically and conceptually muddled as to be fundamentally inaccurate.

This article describes the debate over the euthanasia law of the Northern Territory of Australia in its constitutional context. After considering the juridical status of the Northern Territory and related topics, this article outlines the judicial and legislative challenges to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (RTI Act) of the Northern Territory and concludes by offering some justifications for the passing of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Commonwealth), which effectively repeals the RTI Act. In dealing with these issues special emphasis will be given to the problem of Commonwealth law overriding Territory law and the concept of fundamental common law rights. The appropriateness of a Parliamentary solution--as opposed to a resolution through the courts--is defended.

The author critically reviews Dutch court decisions on nonvoluntary euthanasia. First, he examines euthanasia practice in the Netherlands. The author next discusses in detail the 1995 cases of two physicians who were prosecuted for terminating the lives of infants who were severely ill and disabled. The courts accepted nonvoluntary euthanasia and relied on the physicians' defense of necessity. Jochemsen exposes serious flaws in the reasoning of the courts and concludes that newborns with congenital disorders should be given appropriate palliative care. Jochemsen fears that by extending the practice of euthanasia to infants with disabilities the Dutch courts have taken another step toward endangering the lives of all incompetent persons.

The results of a follow-up study of euthanasia by the Dutch government, five years after the first study, were published on November 26, 1996. This article provides a detailed review of the two reports comparing and contrasting the statistics cited therein. The author notes that the "rules of careful conduct" proposed by the courts and by the Royal Dutch Society of Medicine were frequently disregarded. Special topics included for the first time in the second study were the notification and non-prosecution procedure, euthanasia of newborns and infants, and assisted suicide in psychiatric practice. The authors of the follow-up report state that it would be desirable to reduce the number of "terminations of life without patients' request," but this must be the common responsibility of the doctor and the patient. They suggest that the person who does not wish to have his life terminated should declare this clearly, in advance, verbally and in writing, preferably in the form of a living will. Involuntary euthanasia was rampant in 1990 and equally rampant in 1995. The author concludes that Dutch doctors who practice euthanasia are not on the slippery slope. From the very beginning, they have been at the bottom.

This Board of Trustees Reports urges physicians to be aware of continuing efforts by some in society to end suffering by speeding deaths through medical interventions. The experience in Holland with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is outlined in this report, as are the differing interpretations of the Dutch data by voices in Holland. The Dutch guidelines intended to protect patients have not been consistently respected. The sum of the experience suggests that implementation of their controls on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has not been effective. Recognizing that there are differences between withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the availability of mechanisms for end of life medical decision-making by patients, such as powers of attorney, etc., should be more widely promoted. The Board of Trustees recommends that the American Medical Association reject euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as being incompatible with the nature and purposes of the healing arts.