|
Dutch Euthanasia: General
Practitioners Do Most of the Killing
By Wesley J. Smith
 |
|
Wesley J. Smith |
Editor's note. This first
appeared yesterday on Wesley's blog at
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/11/14/dutch-euthanasia-general-practioners-do-most-of-the-killing/
Bioedge linked to a story about
how Dutch euthanasia statistics are going up–fast. Not
surprising, but those statistics aren't very useful in the end
because doctors follow the law or don't, report euthanasia or
don't: It doesn't matter much since nothing meaningful is ever
done when the laws are broken. As one study (Henk Jochemsen and
John Keown, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999; 25: 16-21) put it
so aptly, Dutch euthanasia is "beyond effective control."
Everything else is just PR in the end.
(For more details, see my 2006
testimony before a U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating
assisted suicide at
http://www.discovery.org/a/3494#footnote15.)
But I thought this was
interesting. Most people who ask for euthanasia have cancer and
are administered death by drug overdose by general
practitioners. From the story [www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9297/#comments]
:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As BioEdge reported back in June,
official notifications increased sharply in 2009, from from
2,331 in 2008 to 2,636 – a rise of 13%. In nearly all cases, the
patient was suffering from cancer and died at home. The
euthanasing doctor was nearly always a general practitioner.
What could this mean? Well, since
the Dutch system of palliative care is stunted in comparison
with other countries that don't have euthanasia, it could mean
that the patients did not receive the kind of medical care from
a less expert in cancer care general practitioner. than might
have been received by a cancer or palliative care expert. If
true, the better care might have made them not want euthanasia,
or at least have more accurate information about prognosis and
outcomes when asking for a lethal overdose than a GP might
provide. Indeed, a GP might be more pessimistic about the
ability to control cancer symptoms, affecting her or her
willingness to dispatch the patient.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Substantiation for this theory
can be found in the awful book, Dancing with Mr. D., by Bert
Keizer, a nursing home doctor. Keizer describes euthanizing a
man tentatively diagnosed with lung cancer–without even waiting
for the final diagnosis. And this is the part of the book that
fried my brains! From my "Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted
Suicide and the New Duty to Die":
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One man he euthanizes probably
has lung cancer but the diagnosis is never certain. A relative
tells Keizer that the man wants to be given a lethal injection,
a request later confirmed by the patient. Keizer quickly agrees
to kill the man.
Demonstrating the utter
uselessness of "protective guidelines," he never tells his
patient about treatment options or how the pain and other
symptoms of cancer can be palliated effectively. He never even
checks to see if the man has been pressured into wanting a
hastened death or is depressed. Keizer doesn't even take the
time to confirm the diagnosis with certainty. When a colleague
asks, why rush, and points out that the man isn't suffering
terribly, Keizer snaps:
Is it for us to answer this
question? All I know is that he wants to die more or less
upright and that he doesn't want to crawl to his grave the way a
dog crawls howling to the side walk after he's been hit by a
car.
Keizer either doesn't know or
doesn't care that with proper medical treatment, people with
lung cancer do not have to die in such unmitigated agony. The
next day, he lethally injects his patient, telling his
colleagues as he walks to the man's room to do the deed, "If
anyone so much as whispers cortisone [a palliative agent] or
'uncertain diagnosis,' I'll hit him."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cortisone, of course, is only a
rudimentary form of treatment for cancer symptoms. There is much
more available to help dying patients than that!
This is the sickening truth about
Dutch euthanasia. It isn't a last resort. It may be done even
without the best forms of medicine being made available to the
patient, or perhaps even discussed with him. Those countries
that have not yet swallowed the hemlock ignore the reality of
the Dutch experience at their own peril. |