quote:

---

The March 10 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine featured an article by two Dutch doctors defining a "problem" and a "solution." Drs. Verhagen and Sauer announced that a survey had found that, contrary to Dutch law, some infants with severe disabilities have been euthanized. In an effort to end "uncontrolled" euthanasia, they proposed adoption of a set of protocols, known as the "Groningen protocol," for legally euthanizing infants with disabilities and serious medical conditions.

It's hard to believe anyone could be surprised by the news of this latest effort to expand the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. For the sake of brevity, one might compare Dutch euthanasia practices to a highway system. In this system, drivers are responsible for monitoring their own speed. As long as they tell officials how fast they're driving, the authorities generally won't issue tickets for speeding.

Here's the hitch: the problem of speeding has become so problematic that every few years a driver is actually issued a ticket. In every reported case, the offender was given a slap on the wrist, and the speed limit was raised. Predictably, this just results in a general rise in the speed of traffic and further requests to raise the speed limits. This is, in effect, what happened in 1994 when Dr. Boudewijn Chabot was convicted of aiding the suicide of a woman in despair over the death of her two sons. It happened again in 2001 when Dr. Wilfred van Oijen was tried and convicted for "euthananizing" an elderly woman without her permission.

The main difference between the Dutch system and the American system, I'd suggest, is one of degree. We've set the speed limits at a lower level and mostly resisted requests to raise them.

---

[ July 07, 2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hey, congraluations! The snippet you posted was very well written, but that's standard coming from you.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 


Thanks, Kat.

I don't think I'll be asked to write again. I decided not to write like a well-behaved "token."

Here's the closing:

quote:

---

Bioethicists who appear in popular media often decry the simplistic way in which complex issues are addressed. On behalf of Not Dead Yet and other disability rights organizations, I have a not-so-respectful request: admit your failure to promote a complex and accurate public discussion of bioethical issues and make room for those of us who seem more willing and able to lead the effort.

---

Not expecting any invitations to bioethicist cocktail parties any time soon.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I really liked it. I'd like to know more about the history behind your "highway speeding" analogy, though. Can you link to some resources for me?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
KQ, what, specifically, do you want to know more about with the analogy? The reporting systen in the Netherlands? The lack of consequences for those few doctors brought in on charges? The subsequent easing of standards?

(BTW, I really think the U.S. is in the same boat. There is little monitoring of physicians' performance and conduct from outside agencies. It's virtually unheard of to hear of a physician in this country being tried for murder or manslaughter for killing a patient. Criminal prosecutions tend to be in narcotics or fraud areas of behavior. The only accountability for harming or killing patients is through malpractice suits - and we all know how the medical community feels about those. )
 

---

Posted by Diana Bailey (Member # 8313) on :
 
Excellent, passionate article...as a person with a disability, it has always haunted me to find out how easily people dismiss my quality of life. This is such an important topic. Keep writing!
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
If this DID make you a biothicist . . . would that mean you'd have to change your opinion of bioethicists?

Congratulations, and well done.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Congratulations! I'm glad they came out with the web version. I think I'll share my prior comments with slight revision:

No one should mistake this bias for anything other than what it is—an over-valuation of physical and mental norms, which is bigotry. That prejudice is often mistaken for objectivity in bioethics discussions.”

It really sums up the crux of the issue. I still hear people say they want their "doctors" (with no clear indication as to which one) to make decisions in cases like Terri Schiavo's because they don't recognize the limitations of medical science. Even granting that it has the ability to define the physical and mental limitations of a particular condition (which I don't grant they can do infallibly, although they certainly have the best information available on that regard), they still don't have any more information than anyone else about what kind of life someone will lead. And they have far less such information than the actual people involved.

Do people not realize this proposed Netherlands policy amounts to "doctors will decide which lives are worth living?" And if they do, doesn't that scare the bejeezus out of them? And doesn't it scare doctors to have that kind of responsibility?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
dkw, showing her orneriness, said:

quote:

---

If this DID make you a biothicist . . . would that mean you'd have to change your opinion of bioethicists?

---

This is where my policy of refusing to respond to hypotheticals comes in very handy.

Semi-seriously, whenever someone asks if I consider myself a bioethicist or an ethicist, my stock answer is:

"Absolutely not! My parents raised me better than that."

I'm thinking maybe bioethics as a field should be called upon to justify its continued existence and sustenance by extraordinary means - grants, endowments and university resources.

(more later...)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Whatever you are, you should be proud. Although you calling dkw ornery is a hoot.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

Excellent, passionate article...as a person with a disability, it has always haunted me to find out how easily people dismiss my quality of life. This is such an important topic. Keep writing!

---

Diana,

thanks. If you check out the website, you'll find I've written a lot more on associated subjects.

When it comes to writing, a quote that is most often attributed to Dorothy Parker applies to me:

"I hate writing; I love having written."

Well, mostly. Because when it's done I can't change it and there's nothing to be done about it. (although the web allows for exceptions to this rule)
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Well done - you left me wanting more. More of your thoughts, more information, more dialogue. Keep saying the words that need to be said - and don't worry about those cocktail parties. *grin*
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I would just like more background; I know virtually nothing about this subject.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You know, Steven, I saw the subject line of this thread and thought, "No, it does make you a bioethicist. So there! You are what you hate! Ha-ha!"
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Me too, how ironic is that?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Tom and Kwea,

my best, most measured and analytical response is this:

::sticks fingers in ears and hums loudly until Tom and Kwea stop saying these things.::
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
I don't understand, Tom and/or Kwea, why did it make you think that?
 

---