Madam, – My welcoming of the cancellation of the euthanasia lecture (April 13th) generated criticism from some respondents. These argued that Prof Len Doyal’s right to free speech had been violated. Prof Doyal believes in involuntary euthanasia. He states that “regulated, intentional active killing can have a proper place in good medical practice”.
Perhaps Prof Doyal has a right to proclaim such views, which some would argue are tantamount to an incitement to murder (which is a criminal offence), but the HSE has no right to spend taxpayers’ money sponsoring the public proclamation of such views, especially on hospital grounds.
More generally, I wonder if your correspondents, two of whom voiced approval of euthanasia, are aware of the kind of horror a culture of euthanasia unleashes. Doubtless, like many other proponents, they are inspired by the noblest of motives, yet no matter how noble the motivation, acceptance of euthanasia inevitably involves a subtle and terrible shift in the attitude of doctor to patient.
Even in the extreme case of the Third Reich, the reign of terror began with such a shift. Dr Leo Alexander, a staff member of the chief counsel for war crimes at Nuremberg, stated, “Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.”
In the Netherlands, involuntary euthanasia is now quasi-legal, even for children. Thousands of patients are killed each year. One in five of all deaths in the Netherlands every year are as a result of euthanasia, one in 10 administered involuntarily. Many people are terrified of going to hospital for fear they may be euthanised against their will.
Our laws reflect our most fundamental values and play an important part in forming attitudes and shaping behaviour. Legalised euthanasia therefore undermines trust between doctor and patient. It places a terrible psychological burden on all the non-rehabilitable sick and elderly who may think of themselves as a burden to their families and to society.
Experts in palliative care report that expressions of a desire to die from patients are often used as a means of assessing their worth to other people and are transitory. (A Dutch opinion poll found 90 per cent opposition to euthanasia in the nursing home population).
Horrifically, legalised euthanasia means that such requests may be (and are) acted on. Euthanasia also encourages the doctor to evaluate human life in dehumanised utilitarian terms. It transforms him from a caregiver into a killer. Yet the very sick and the incapacitated elderly need care, comfort and reassurance, not the message from society that their lives are worthless.
The last thing these vulnerable people need is to have to live in fear as to what their family or doctor may be thinking or planning. We are lucky here in Ireland that patients do not experience such pressures, that we as a society still reject the culture of euthanasia, which Prof Doyal came to promote. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – As we are reduced to a debate, in letters only, about euthanasia, we should perhaps remember how well we have dealt with the abortion issue. Despite the intimidatory tactics adopted by the anti-choice side and the cowardice of our politicians, we have arrived at a perfectly acceptable compromise. One may take the short trip to the UK to exercise one’s ownership of one’s body.
We can deal with euthanasia, with just as much ease and cowardice. Switzerland provides individuals with the opportunity to exercise ultimate control over their own bodies. Those of us who wish to access this right have merely to hop on a plane. The only problem I foresee is how those on medical cards get access equal to those of us who can afford one-way plane tickets. – Yours, etc,