Look at the Netherlands. That’s what conservatives who have been tracking the progress of international euthanasia law for years have learned. For that matter, look at the Netherlands or Belgium. These two countries are to Europe what Oregon and California are to the United States. So first and worst. They’ve been racing each other to the bottom, giving us a glimpse of what the future will look like unless someone cares enough to change that.
The Netherlands first legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002, and Belgium followed suit just a few months later. In 2014, Belgium became the first country to legalize “voluntary” euthanasia for terminally ill children of any age. The Netherlands also announced this week that it has for years extended its “services” to underage teenagers and terminally ill newborns (with parental consent if doctors determine that the baby’s suffering is “unbearable” and cannot be cured). However, we have finally followed suit. Now the gap between the 1 year old and her 12 year old has been bridged. No child was left behind, so to speak.
Of course, the “unbearable and never-ending suffering” formula applies here as well, and requires the recommendation of two doctors. A report in a Christian Dutch-language magazine estimates that only five to 10 children a year qualify, but the pro-life advocacy group NPV-Zorg voor het leven (translated as “Care for Life”) I doubt that that number will continue. low. The law does not include any “due diligence requirements” and follows the familiar pattern of leaving this type of thing to the discretion of individual physicians when an incident occurs. Between the delicate wiggle room of words like “terminal” and “suffering” and the further arguments from future suffering that will no doubt be forced, there is no reason to assume that the small estimate will not rise steadily. The author of the article further states that the nature of this law ensures that all of this occurs outside the jurisdiction of international law.
And, of course, when terminally ill children are given benefits, the inevitable question arises: “What happens to physically suffering children who are not terminally ill?” Some might play devil’s advocate and argue that their situation is more like this: more It’s sad because there’s no end in sight. Or what will happen to depressed young people like Shanti de Corte, a Belgian PTSD sufferer who was murdered by her country in 2022? And then we roll down the slippery slope.
The BBC report has a documentary clip embedded in it, which, perhaps wisely, features an elderly Belgian rather than a Dutch teenager. Still worth watching, as it chillingly illustrates the basic logic behind all euthanasia laws. Our protagonist is a “compassionate” doctor who is eerily reminded that he could go to prison if he provides medical care in the UK. In the words of one woman: We met some of his older patients. They are vulnerable, desperate people who are relieved that they will not be forced to die a slow, agonizing death in “a room that smells like piss.”
Of course, if the woman had been three years old, she could not have predicted her own death so eloquently. But the chain of logic that led the state to kill a 3-year-old is clear. The book begins with the axiom that it is better to die than suffer, and concludes that such death should be respected as a fundamental human right. It is treated as a mercy owed by a healthy person to a sick person, just as we are owed to animals. If we would not withhold such tender mercy from a sick adult, why should we withhold it from a child? In fact, the younger the person suffering, the more guilty they should be made to feel for their hesitation. Sure, a child might not understand what’s going on, but neither can an old family dog, so we lovingly kill him anyway. And we see that what began as an argument for “free choice” still ends up devouring choice itself.
This is how the culture of death slowly works its poison. In this way, the voice of death is exalted as kind and benevolent, while the voice of life is drowned out as inhuman and fanatical. religiously It’s as fanatical as the recent “Death with Dignity” movement against Christian opponents in the United States, which is hysterically screeching. No doubt they look longingly across the pond and see the kind of loving and caring future they might have had it not been for the “religiously motivated” weird jobs that persistently got in their way. I’m drawing. We are reminded that in New Mexico and California, Christian doctors and dentists banded together to challenge weak opt-out provisions for medical professionals who do not want to “aid” people’s deaths. “While the stated purpose was to ensure that the opt-out provisions were strong enough, the real purpose was to ensure that we all adhered to the morals and values of the Church and Christian Health Institutions.” warns. Dental Association. ”
Oh my god! They are heading towards us!
In all seriousness, we don’t expect death with dignity to align with our values any time soon. Until then, we will look to Belgium and the Netherlands and vow not to join them as long as Christians have anything to say about it.