Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court

The following press release is from ADF International on November 28, 2023.

• Dániel Karsai, Hungarian national suffering from progressive neurodegenerative condition, seeks legalization of assisted suicide in Hungary before European Court of Human Rights in oral hearing today.
•  ADF International intervenes, arguing that Hungary is obligated to protect the right to life; there is no “right to die”.
  

Strasbourg (28 November 2023) – Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought his challenge to Hungary’s ban on assisted suicide before the European Court of Human Rights today. Assisted suicide is illegal under Hungarian law, as in the overwhelming majority of countries.

ADF International intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life.

In its submission to the Court, the legal advocacy organization highlights the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explains: “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources.”

“We cannot abandon our essential human rights protections.”

“While Mr. Karsai’s condition demands our greatest compassion, we cannot abandon our essential human rights protections. Hungary is bound under European and international human rights law to safeguard human life,” stated Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International, present at the Court’s oral hearing in Strasbourg on 28 November.

“The right to life is inviolable, underlying all other human rights. Conversely, there is no so-called ‘right to die’. Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. And assisted suicide inevitably results in human rights-violating coercion on medical professionals and others to end human life. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented, and the same stance must apply with regard to assisted suicide. Killing someone can never be the solution,” continued Van De Walle.

The Court, which granted this case priority, is expected to deliver its decision on an expedited timeline.

Seeking a “right” to die

Karsai, 46, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), wishes to resort to assisted suicide before his physical condition further deteriorates. It is a criminal offence in Hungary to help somebody end their life, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintains that even if he were to die by assisted suicide outside of Hungary, the Hungarian Criminal Code would apply to anyone assisting him.

Safeguarding the right to life

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, has highlighted to the Court that there is no so-called “right to die” but, in fact, a clear right to life. This position, in line with both European and international human rights law, underscores the dangers that would ensue from forcing Hungary to allow assisted suicide, highlighting that the intentional taking of human life can never be safe.

The European Court of Human Rights also recognised these dangers in the October 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium, in which the applicant was represented by ADF International. In this case, the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Godelieva De Troyer. The Court condemned Belgium because of “the lack of independence of the Control Commission,” which for over twenty years has presided over the practice of euthanasia in Belgium and supposedly acts as the ‘guardian’ of the legal safeguards.

As stated in the Karsai submission: “Despite alleged ‘safeguards’ and a ‘strict’ legal framework, young adults are euthanised because of ‘incurable depression,’ elderly people because of symptoms related to ageing, prisoners because of lack of access to appropriate mental health care or because of psychological suffering, twins because of becoming blind – to mention only some examples, among many others”.

Legalisation leads to abuses

Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. The practice has been rejected by legislators in the vast majority of countries.

The World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.

In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

“Once we as a society open the doors to intentional killing, there is no logical stopping point. How do we distinguish between the person we talk down from the bridge and the person we let die at the hands of their doctor? The state has an obligation to protect the fundamental value of human life, and we cannot set in motion legal changes that undermine this obligation to the detriment of all of society,” noted Van De Walle.

23-year-old Belgian woman with PTSD dies by euthanasia creating a global scandal

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Shanti De Corte

Sue Reid, wrote an article in the Daily Mail on October 16 about the world-wide reaction to the euthanasia death of Shanti De Corte, the 23-year-old who died by euthanasia in Belgium in May because she was living with PTSD after a ISIS bombing attack 7 years earlier.

• Belgium euthanasia for 23-year-old PTSD ISIS Terrorist Victim (Link). 
• Belgian Neurologist challenges euthanasia death of 23-year-old with PTSD (Link).
  

Reid, reporting for the Daily Mail explains:

Yet the small country is embroiled in a huge controversy, after it emerged that a 23-year-old woman called Shanti De Corte had chosen to end her life in May this year, with the support of her middle-class parents Peter and Marielle. She was suffering from depression and ‘unbearable’ mental distress. She had never recovered from being caught up in the Isis terror bombing of Brussels airport in 2016 as she waited to board a plane to Rome on a school trip.

Shanti, who was then 17, escaped the explosion in the departure hall physically unscathed but many others were less fortunate. No fewer than 32 innocent people were killed and hundreds injured.

Shanti escaped physical injury from the terrorist attack but she continued to live with PTSD. Shanti received treatment but never recovered from the trauma. But when Shanti sought a death by euthanasia, her parents were supportive of the decision.

De Corte's death has had international ramifications. Reid explains:

The revelation that Shanti chose death because of a mental health problem, rather than as a result of suffering a painful or terminal physical disease, has now provoked Belgian prosecutors to investigate her case.

They acted after a Brussels neurologist, Paul Deltenre, complained that she was euthanised ‘prematurely’. The neurologist said there were treatments and care options that had not been tried or explored.

Whatever the truth of this, the case has led anti-euthanasia campaigners to renew claims that, if a young woman who has everything ahead of her can so easily opt to end her life by a doctor’s injection, the country’s assisted-dying law is too liberal.

Godelieve de Troyer

The article explains the state of euthanasia in several jurisdictions. Reid comments on the recent Human Rights decision concerning the euthanasia death of Godelieve de Troyer, who died by euthanasia in 2011 because she had experienced chronic depression.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) slammed the country earlier this month after a 64-year-old woman called Godelieve de Troyer, who suffered from chronic depression, persuaded doctors to euthanise her without the knowledge of her family.

In a damning judgment, the ECHR ruled that the country’s federal euthanasia commission had violated Godelieve’s right to life by failing to examine her case properly after her son, Tom Mortier, complained to the ruling body about the manner of his mother’s death.

His lawyers say she was physically healthy and her own doctor of more than 20 years had denied her request to be euthanised. But she had made a €2,500 donation to an end-of-life organisation which helped organise the procedure in 2012, according to ECHR documents.

Mr Mortier, who is still distressed about the case, has said: ‘My mother was treated for years by psychiatrists and, sadly, she and I lost contact for some time. It was during this period that she died. Never could I have imagined that we would be parted for ever.’

He has revealed that the first he knew of his mother’s death was 24 hours after it had happened, when his wife received a phone call from the hospital telling the family to collect his mother’s belongings and make funeral arrangements. ‘Euthanasia inflicts immense harm on people in vulnerable situations contemplating ending their lives, but also their families,’ he said in a series of European TV interviews and media statements.

Tine Nys with her sisters

Reid writes of Tine Nys, who died by euthanasia because she was autistic, but her family claims that Nys wanted euthanasia after a broken relationship.

        Another high-profile civil case is under way in                        Belgium over the euthanasia of a 38-year-old woman         called Tine Nys who, according to her three doctors,            was suffering ‘unbearable psychological pain’ when she died.

The medics, who argued that they acted in good faith, were each cleared of murder in 2020 despite poisoning Ms Nys when she asked them to kill her in the aftermath of a broken relationship.

Her two sisters, Sophie and Lotte, argue that her condition fell short of an ‘incurable’ mental disorder. They want the key doctor who administered an injection to Tine to pay compensation to their family for what they have told Flemish TV was a botched procedure ‘carried out in an amateurish way’ on someone who had not had psychiatric treatment for 15 years’.

In a Flemish TV interview, the sisters said: ‘He [the doctor] also asked our father to hold the needle in her arm because he had forgotten to bring plasters. When she had died, he asked our parents if they wanted to listen through the stethoscope to check her heart had stopped beating.’

Reid writes of Maria De Laet (81) who requested euthanasia after caring for her husband with dementia for 10 years before he died. 

Killing by euthanasia is promoted and approved based on the "hard" cases. Once killing becomes an acceptable solution to human suffering, there will be many more reasons to kill.

We need a caring society not a society that kills.

Belgian Euthanasia for 23-year-old PTSD ISIS Terroristic Victim

This article was published by National Review on October 7, 2022

By Wesley Smith

A woman who survived an ISIS bombing in Brussels uninjured has been euthanized because of the PTSD the terrorism caused. From the Daily Mail story:

Shanti De Corte, 23, was walking through the departures lounge of the Belgian airport in Zaventem on March 22, 2016 with her school classmates ahead of a trip to Italy when Islamic State terrorists detonated a bomb.

The then 17-year-old escaped the explosion, which together with two other detonations claimed 32 lives and injured more than 300, without suffering any physical wounds.

But the psychological effects of the ordeal left her wracked by constant panic attacks and bouts of dark depression from which she never managed to emerge.

Despite attending a psychiatric hospital in her home town of Antwerp for rehabilitation and taking a range of anti-depressant medications, Shanti was unable to shake the spectre of depression and attempted suicide on two different occasions in 2018 and 2020.

Earlier this year, the troubled young woman opted to be euthanised — a procedure which is legal in Belgium, and died on May 7, 2022 after two psychiatrists approved her request.

In other words, we could say that the psychiatrists completed the terroristic act that ISIS started when it bombed the airport. (No word on whether De Corte’s organs were harvested, which sometimes is conjoined with euthanasia of the mentally ill and depressed because their organs are considered very viable.)

This is only the latest of many examples of Belgian psychiatrists opting to kill depressed patients rather than help them struggle on.

• Godelieva de Troyer was euthanized by an oncologist as a treatment for her severe depression. Her son, Th0mas Mortier, first heard of the killing when he was called by the hospital morgue to pick up his mother’s body. He sued in the European Court of Human Rights and gained a partial victory that Belgium had not conducted a proper investigation of the homicide.
• Nathan Verhelst, distraught at the results of transition surgery, was lethally injected as a palliative for his anguish.
• An anorexic patient whose own psychiatrist sexually predated her was euthanized by a different psychiatrist because of the trauma of the abuse.
• An elderly woman was euthanized for grief after her daughter died of a heart attack.
• A healthy elderly couple who “feared for the future” were euthanized together, killings arranged by their son who said he could not care for them.

This is the consequence of turning doctor-committed homicide/assisted suicide into legal “treatments.” Eventually, the killing takes on a life of its own, and the causes of suffering that qualify one to be made dead never stop expanding.

Court rules that the euthanasia of a depressed woman in Belgium violated Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tom Mortier

Those who follow the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will remember the story of Tom Mortier whose mother Godelieva de Troyer died by euthanasia based on "untreatable depression" in Belgium in 2012. 

In November 2017 Mortier applied to the European Court of Human Rights and in January 2019, they agreed to hear the case. Mortier was arguing that his mother's euthanasia death contravened Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Mortier was represented by Robert Clarke with Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF).

On October 4, 2022, ADF announced that the European Court of Human Rights "ruled in favour of Tom Mortier, son of Godelieva de Troyer, who died by lethal injection in 2012, aged 64. Her euthanasia was conducted on the basis of a diagnosis of “incurable depression”. In the case of Mortier v. Belgium, the Court found that Belgium violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to properly examine the alarming circumstances leading to her euthanasia."

Godelieva de Troyer

This is great news as it is the first time that a major European court has decided that the Belgium euthanasia protocols contravene Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In their media release ADF stated:

The Court held that there was a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. This judgment was with regard to the way in which the facts surrounding de Troyer’s euthanasia were handled by Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia and the promptness of a criminal trial following de Troyer’s death. It did not, however, rule that there was any violation of Belgium’s legislative framework for the practice of euthanasia.

Per the Court, “taking into account the crucial role played by the Commission in the a posteriori control of euthanasia, the Court considers that the control system established in the present case did not ensure its independence”. It thus found that Belgium failed to fulfil its positive procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention both because of the lack of independence of the Commission and due to lack of promptness of the criminal investigation. The holdings that there was no violation of Belgium’s legislative framework and no violation of Article 2 for the conditions of the euthanasia were five votes to two.

The ADF media release explained the case.

The facts of the case highlight the myriad dangers that arise when euthanasia is legalized, and make clear that even legal ‘safeguards’ are not sufficient to protect the right to life when the practice of intentionally ending a life is available under the law. 

In this case, Tom’s mother was able to approach the country’s leading euthanasia advocate who, despite being a cancer specialist, ultimately agreed to euthanize her. Over a period of just a few months, she made a financial payment to his organization and was referred by him to see other doctors who were also part of the same association despite a requirement for independent opinions in the case of individuals not expected to die soon. The same doctor that euthanized her is also co-chair of the Federal Commission charged with approving euthanasia cases after the fact, including this one, demonstrating a clear conflict of interest. Despite Belgium euthanizing an average of seven people per day, the Commission has only ever referred one case for further investigation.

“The big problem in our society is that apparently, we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other”

The ADF media release continued:

Euthanasia in Belgium has been legal since 2002. The law specifies that the person must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident”.

Mr. Mortier’s mother was physically healthy, and her treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years doubted that she satisfied the requirements of the Belgian euthanasia law. Neither the oncologist who administered the injection nor the hospital informed him that she was even considering euthanasia. Mr. Mortier found out the day after she was euthanized when the hospital asked him to make the necessary arrangements.

Tom Mortier stated in the media release:

“My mother suffered from severe mental difficulties, and coped with depression throughout her life. She was treated for years by psychiatrists, and sadly, she and I lost contact for some time. It was during this time that she died by way of lethal injection. Never could I have imagined that we would be parted forever.”

“This marks the close of this terrible chapter, and while nothing can alleviate the pain of losing my mother, my hope is that the ruling from the Court that there was indeed a violation of the right to life puts the world on notice as to the immense harm euthanasia inflicts on not just people in vulnerable situations contemplating ending their lives, but also their families, and ultimately society”.

Robert Clarke, the ADF lawyer who represented Mortier stated why this is a positive precedent setting decision:

“This ruling serves as stark reminder. It is clear that the so-called ‘safeguards’ failed because intentional killing can never be safe. We must be unfailing in our commitment to advocating for the right to life and the truth that people have inherent dignity no matter their age or health condition”

More articles about Tom Mortier's case:

• Belgian law violated by killing depressed woman with euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia in Belgium. A son's story (Link)
• Europe's top human rights court will hear case of depressed Belgian woman who died by euthanasia (Link).
• Depressed mother died by euthanasia, her son challenges the law (Link).
• Belgian euthanasia promoters attack man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia (Link).

Europe’s top human rights court to rule on landmark euthanasia case.

Link to the ADF Press Release

 

STRASBOURG (2 October 2022) – On TUESDAY 4 OCTOBER 2022, the European Court of Human Rights is set to rule on landmark euthanasia case Tom Mortier v. Belgium. Tom Mortier, son of Godelieva de Troyer, brought the case after his mother was put to death by lethal injection in 2012, aged 64. Mortier claims that Belgium violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to properly protect the right to life of his mother -especially in light of the circumstances surrounding her death.

“My mother suffered from severe mental difficulties, and coped with depression throughout her life. She was treated for years by psychiatrists, and sadly, she and I lost contact for some time. It was during this time that she died by way of lethal injection. Never could I have imagined that we would be parted forever,” said Tom Mortier.

“The big problem in our society is that apparently we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other,” Mortier continued.

The insufficiency of “safeguards”

The case highlights the dangers of legalising euthanasia, and demonstrates that so-called ‘safeguards’ cannot make safe the practice of intentionally ending a life.

“We welcome the decision of the Court to hear this important case on the right to life – particularly as it relates to the most vulnerable in society. International law has never established a so-called ‘right to die.’ On the contrary, it solidly affirms the right to life – particularly for the most vulnerable among us. A look at the sad facts of this case exposes the lie that euthanasia is good for individuals, families, or society,” said Robert Clarke, ADF International Deputy Director, who represents Tom Mortier before the Court.

Tom Mortier’s mother, who suffered from depression, had approached the country’s leading euthanasia advocate who, despite being a cancer specialist, ultimately agreed to euthanize her.

Over a period of just a few months, de Troyer made a financial payment to the euthanasia advocate’s organization. She was referred by him to see other doctors who were also part of the same association, despite a requirement for independent opinions in the case of individuals not expected to die soon. The same doctor that euthanized her is also co-chair of the Federal Commission charged with approving euthanasia cases after the fact.

Prior to her death by euthanasia, neither her son Tom Mortier nor any family member was consulted. According to the oncologist who administered the lethal injection to his mother, her diagnosis was ‘untreatable depression’.

Despite Belgium now euthanizing an average of seven people per day, the Commission has only ever referred one case for further investigation.

Belgium’s “Slippery Slope”

Euthanasia in Belgium has been legal since 2002. The law specifies that the person must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident”.

Over 27,000 people have died from euthanasia in Belgium since it was legalised 20 years ago on 28th May 2002, according to the latest official data from Belgian authorities.

Mortier’s mother was physically healthy, and her treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years doubted that she satisfied the requirements of the Belgian euthanasia law. Neither the oncologist who administered the injection nor the hospital informed him that she was even considering euthanasia. Mr. Mortier found out the day after she was euthanized when the hospital asked him to make the necessary arrangements.

More articles about Tom Mortier's case:

• Belgian law violated by killing depressed woman with euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia in Belgium. A son's story (Link)
• Europe's top human rights court will hear case of depressed Belgian woman who died by euthanasia (Link).
• Depressed mother died by euthanasia, her son challenges the law (Link).
• Belgian euthanasia promoters attack man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia (Link).

Belgian euthanasia doctor accused of unlawful euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Belgian euthanasia protest

The veneer of Belgian euthanasia has been peeling off with the publicity of the trials in the Tine Nys euthanasia death and the case launched by Tom Mortier to gain justice in the death of his healthy but depressed mother.

A court decision to determine if the doctor made a mistake in the death of Tine Nys was expected last month but has not yet been promulgated.

Recently a doctor was arrested after a complaint stated that the doctor had unlawfully euthanised a 91-year-old man in the Jan Palfijn hospital in Ghent. The hospital first suspended the doctor from his duties and then withdrew the suspension.

According to Amelie Outters reporting for VRT.BE:

On Saturday 20 November, after the death of an elderly patient, a "possibly unlawful euthanasia" was reported to the police, according to the East Flanders prosecutor's office. An investigating judge was requested to investigate the exact circumstances of the termination of life and the doctor was arrested and brought to trial. He was released under strict conditions after extensive questioning by the investigating judge.

Doctors at the Jan Palfijn hospital recently protested that the hospital managers contacted the public prosecutor without first discussing the accusation with the doctor.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on March 19, 2015 stated in the Flanders region of Belgium (2013), more than 1000 assisted deaths were done without explicit request and almost half of the assisted deaths were not reported.

It looks like a “cover-up” when an independent study produces hard data concerning the lack of oversight with the Belgian euthanasia law while the government evaluation committee claims that there are no problems with the euthanasia law.

Another court hearing in the Belgian euthanasia death of Tine Nys

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tine Nys (center) with her sisters

Alan Hope reported for the Brussels Times that a new trial has started in the death of Tine Nys, who died by euthanasia for psychological reasons in Belgium in April 2010.

On January 31, 2020 a Belgian court cleared three doctors in the euthanasia death of Tine Nys (38). The Tine's family continued to argue that Tine didn't qualify for euthanasia and that she was falsely diagnosed as autistic in order to qualify her for euthanasia.

A BBC news article from January 14, 2020 reported that:

Nys's family argue that her reason for seeking to end her life was because of a failed relationship, far short of the "serious and incurable disorder" as required under Belgian law.

Hope reported that the family challenged the January 31, 2020 verdict. 

That trial led to an acquittal of all three, but the family took the verdict to the Cassation Court, which ordered that Dr Van Hove should be tried again, as the court’s explanation for its verdict in his case was insufficiently argued.

Hope stated that since the public prosecutor did not appeal the court decision, this court case concerns the civil liability of the physician who euthanized Tine Nys.

When the three doctors were acquitted in January 2020, the public prosecutor declined to take the case to the Cassation Court, which means that the acquittal on criminal charges can no longer be overturned. So the court case currently underway in Dendermonde has to decide if Dr Van Hove is civilly liable, and therefore has to pay damages to Nys’ family.

Recently Belgium's euthanasia law was criticized at the UN Human Rights Committee.

Tom Mortier's case concerning the euthanasia death of his depressed mother in Belgium also continues.

The family of Tine Nys have battled the Belgian legal system for more than 10 years.

Similar to Canada, when a euthanasia death is approved, even if the assessments were wrong, the death has been considered lawful.

Belgium’s euthanasia law criticized at UN Human Rights Council

This update is was posted on May 7, 2021 by ADF International.

Geneva (7 May 2021) – Belgium has been challenged on the human rights implications of its euthanasia law at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland this week. Undergoing a “Universal Periodic Review”, during which states are scrutinized on their human rights record and called to consider reforms, various states urged the government to improve treatment of the elderly and of persons with disabilities. Since legalization in 2002, the country has experienced a hundredfold increase in registered euthanasia deaths. In February 2014, the law was expanded to enable doctors to end the lives of children of any age.

“A fair and just society cares for its most vulnerable. International law protects everyone’s inherent right to life and requires countries to protect the dignity and lives of all people, rather than help ending them. Sadly, over the years, we have seen Belgium’s euthanasia law spiral out of control. In one case, the life of a 23-year-old female was tragically ended by euthanasia due to her battle with mental health issues. There is nothing progressive about a government that refuses to provide care and support to those who need it most. We urge the Belgian government to accept the recommendations it has received on this matter: bring an end to euthanasia and redirect resources into improving palliative care for those reaching the natural end of their lives,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, UN legal officer for ADF International, Geneva.

Haiti, Egypt and Bangladesh amongst those to raise concerns for Belgium’s vulnerable

The World Medical Association has consistently and categorically rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as being unethical. The act has long been associated with discriminatory attitudes against those who are elderly or disabled. In 2017, almost 20% of deaths by euthanasia in Belgium were carried out on patients displaying symptoms common with aging.

Bangladesh was among those to raise concerns, asking that the Belgian government commit to “protect and promote the right of life of all people until natural death, without discrimination on the basis of age, disability or any other grounds.”

Additionally, Haiti urged the government to “ensure that patients receive palliative care of high quality.”

Egypt, in its general remarks, noted specific concerns about the legality of euthanasia being in violation of human rights treaties which affirm and protect every human being’s inherent right to life.

Case against Belgium’s euthanasia law pending at Europe’s top court

Meanwhile, Belgium is being forced to defend its euthanasia law at the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights group ADF International is supporting the case of Tom Mortier, who is challenging the current legal situation after having lost his mother to the lethal procedure in 2012.

“The big problem in our society is that apparently we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other,” said Tom Mortier.

“My mother had a severe mental problem. She had to cope with depression throughout her life. She was treated for years by psychiatrists and eventually the contact between us was broken. A year later she received a lethal injection. Neither the oncologist who administered the injection nor the hospital had informed me or any of my siblings that our mother was even considering euthanasia. I found out a day later when I was contacted by the hospital, asking me to take care of the practicalities,” he continued.

Belgian law specifies that the person must be in a ‘medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident.’ Tom’s mother was physically healthy, and her treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years did not believe that she satisfied the legal requirements of the Belgian euthanasia law. Nonetheless, she was euthanized in 2012 by an oncologist with no known psychiatric qualifications.

The same doctor who euthanized Tom’s mother co-chairs the Federal Commission which reviews euthanasia cases to ensure the law has been respected. He also leads a pro-euthanasia organization which received a payment from Tom Mortier’s mother in the weeks preceding her death. Despite all this, according to the Belgian government, the Federal Commission voted “unanimously” to approve the euthanasia in this case.

The case, which now sits before the top European court, has the potential to set a precedent for euthanasia laws across Europe. The Court’s decision could affect more than 820 million Europeans across the 47 Council of Europe Member States subject to its rulings.

“The slippery slope is on full public display in Belgium, and we see the tragic consequences in this case. According to the most recent government report, more than six people per day are euthanized in this way, and that may yet be the tip of the iceberg. The figures expose the truth that, once these laws are passed, the impact of euthanasia cannot be controlled. Belgium has set itself on a trajectory that, at best, implicitly tells the most vulnerable that their lives are not worth living,” said Robert Clarke, Deputy Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who represents Tom Mortier before the Court.

Belgian authorities investigating alleged illegal euthanasia deaths

This article was published by Bioedge on November 29, 2020.

Michael Cook

By Michael Cook
Editor of BioEdge 

Officials in the Belgian city of Leuven are investigating about ten euthanasia cases which may not have been done legally.

The public prosecutor was tipped off by an anonymous letter to the De Standaard newspaper. comes from a letter sent anonymously to the paper’s editorial desk. Until the investigation has been completed, police are keeping mum.

The letter says: “Our family member passed away two years ago, and we were told that euthanasia was presumed to have been carried out without the doctors informing us or following the necessary procedure. This is a very traumatic experience for us.”

Doctors are not required to notify the family if a person wants to be euthanised, but various medical associations strongly recommend it.

Two doctors were named in the letter, both of them associated with nursing homes in the Emmaus group. The head of the group, a former federal minister, Inge Vervotte, confirmed that the two doctors work with the homes, but she insisted that stressed that the cases being investigated involved patients in their private practice, and not residents of the nursing homes.

Professor Wim Distelmans, Belgium’s chief euthanasia overseer, said that his committee is supposed to be informed about every case of euthanasia, but it doesn’t always happen. “Some doctors are happy to admit that,” he admitted.

“What doctors write down, we naturally take for granted as true,” he said. “Apart from that, and rightly so, everyone is free to file a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office if they think they have reason to.”"

This article was published by Mercatornet on November 30, 2020.

Belgium’s complacent euthanasia regime under threat

More complaints have been made about doctors who break the law with impunity

By Michael Cook

Editor of Bioedge

In northern latitudes the sound of spring begins with the booming of snow-covered ice cracking in frozen rivers. Is something like that happening in Belgium?

Officials in the Belgian city of Leuven are investigating about ten euthanasia cases which may not have been done legally.

The public prosecutor was tipped off by an anonymous letter to the De Standaard newspaper. Until the investigation has been completed, police are keeping mum.

The letter said: “Our family member passed away two years ago, and we were told that euthanasia was presumed to have been carried out without the doctors informing us or following the necessary procedure. This has been a very traumatic experience for us.”

Doctors are not required to notify the family if a person wants to be euthanised, but various medical associations strongly recommend it.

Two doctors were named in the letter, both of them associated with nursing homes run by the Emmaus group. The head of the group, a former federal minister, Inge Vervotte, confirmed that the two doctors work with the homes, but she insisted that stressed that the cases being investigated involved patients in their private practice, and not residents of the nursing homes.

Professor Wim Distelmans, Belgium’s chief euthanasia overseer, said that his committee is supposed to be informed about every case of euthanasia, but it doesn’t always happen. “Some doctors are happy to admit that,” he admitted.

“What doctors write down, we naturally take for granted as true,” he said. “Apart from that, and rightly so, everyone is free to file a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office if they think they have reason to.”

In other words, according to Belgium’s Grand Poobah of Euthanasia, move along please, there’s nothing to see here.

But there is.

 

Wim Distelmans

Regulation of euthanasia in Belgium would not pass the smell test for conflict of interest in countries like the US or the UK.

Dr Distelmans, a photogenic, charismatic oncologist, is the most egregious example of a bizarre euthanasia Mafia which appears to set the agenda for euthanasia in Belgium. He is the head of the regulatory body; he is perhaps the country’s best-known practitioner of euthanasia (he has reportedly killed hundreds of people); he is the chairman of the country’s leading euthanasia lobby, LEIF; and he is the media’s go-to man for comment on euthanasia.

Conflict of interest, anyone?

The European Court of Human Rights is currently considering the case of a Belgian woman, Godelieva De Troyer, who was euthanised in 2012. Wim Distelmans was her doctor. Her son, Tom Mortier, claims not only that he was left out of the process, but that there were legal irregularities in the way that the euthanasia was carried out.

“The facts of this case, and the requirements of the law in Belgium, are so far apart that it demonstrates that if you legalize euthanasia, you cannot control it,” says Robert Clarke, an English barrister acting for Mortier.

Local authorities have dismissed the long-running case as a smear campaign. A leading Belgian intellectual, the late Etienne Vermeersch, the former president of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics, defended Distelmans in a 2014 newspaper op-ed. In it he declared, in a baffling display of chauvinistic delusion, that Belgium, together with the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where euthanasia is also legal, “stands, ethically, at the top of the world.”

Now it appears that the tragic death of Godelieva De Troyer may not have been an outlier.

Stay tuned.

Belgium: Reported euthanasia deaths increase to 2656 in 2019. A 267% increase in 9 years.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The European Institute of Bioethics (EIB) has published a report on the 2019 Belgian euthanasia report indicating that the number of reported assisted deaths increased by 12.6% in 2019 to 2656. The 2018 Belgian euthanasia report, indicated that there were 2357 reported assisted deaths. There were 954 reported assisted deaths in 2010 representing a 267% increase in 9 years.

The EIB stated that the Belgian euthanasia commission admits that it:

“does not have the possibility of evaluating the proportion of the number of euthanasia's declared in relation to the number of euthanasia's actually carried out.”

A NEJM study examining 2013 Belgian deaths and euthanasia commission data concluded that almost half of the euthanasia deaths in 2013 were not reported to the commission.

The same NEJM study also concluded that more than 1000 deaths (1.7%) were hastened without explicit request in 2013.

The EIB report stated that the 2019 Belgium euthanasia data states that 57 people died by euthanasia based on psychiatric disorders and 48 people died by euthanasia based on cognitive disorders (dementia syndromes).

The EIB report stated that of the 57 deaths based on psychiatric disorders: 17 people had mood disorders (depression, bipolar, ...); 26 people had personality and behavioral disorders (compared to 13 for the previous period); 4 people had neurotic disorders, disorders linked to stressors and 6 somatoform disorders; 7 people had schizophrenia, schizothypic disorders and delusional disorders, and 3 people had organic mental disorders such as autism.

The 48 people who died based on cognitive disorders, 43 were not expected to die soon.

The EIB report also states that (google translated):

"in young psychiatric patients, "the unbearable and persistent nature of suffering was frequently associated with past experiences" such as sexual abuse, neglect as a child, parental rejection, self-harm and suicide attempts. . the Commission added, speaking of euthanasia, that “the failed suicide attempts made the people concerned aware that there was also another, more dignified way of ending one's life”.

I guess the euthanasia commission considers euthanasia an alternative to suicide.

According to the EIB analysis, the Belgian euthanasia report indicated that 96% of the deaths stated that physical suffering as a reason, but 81% of the deaths stated that psychological suffering was a reason for euthanasia. Only 7% of the deaths had a consultation with a palliative care practitioner.

Euthanasia and organ donation occurred in 18 of the deaths. The EIB reported that 11 of the 18 deaths had either a disease of the nervous system or a mental and behavioral disorder.

The EIB analysis of the Belgian euthanasia report (French) examines many more issues, but for the purposes of my report it is clear that the number and type of euthanasia deaths has increased significantly over the past few years.

Once medicalized killing becomes legal, there soon develops many more reasons to kill. Belgium is the prime example of a country that is continuously expanding the scope of its euthanasia regime.

More articles on the Belgian euthanasia regime:

• A retrial is ordered in the euthanasia death of Tine Nys, who was diagnosed as autistic (Link).
• Belgium law violated to kill depressed woman by euthanasia (Link).

7 ways Belgium doesn’t follow its own euthanasia law

This article was published by Mercatornet on October 7, 2020

So-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection.

Robert Clarke

By Robert Clarke

As the New Zealand euthanasia referendum approaches, voters could be helped by looking at the experience in other countries before making up their minds on this complex topic. At the end of July, Czechia became the latest country to reject the legalisation of euthanasia following similar rejections in Portugal and Finland. The opposition to the bill was largely based on concerns about the impact on the elderly and vulnerable. The final nail in the coffin was the Ministry of Social Affairs’ assessment that the bill did not contain enough safeguards against human error or violations of the law.

Wherever euthanasia is proposed, its advocates normally try to alleviate concerns by explaining that the system would be carefully controlled and tightly monitored — after all, we are talking about the deliberate ending of someone’s life. In evaluating what they say, we do not have to rely on speculation. Instead, we can look to the way these so-called “safeguards” function in countries that have already legalised these practices.

Tom Mortier's mother

I represent Tom Mortier, a Belgian university lecturer in his landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, his physically healthy 64-year-old mother was euthanised for what the doctor called ‘incurable depression’. After more than six years of research, and close analysis of responses provided by the Belgium government, it is clear that the reality falls a long way short of the promises made when the Belgian legislation was passed in 2002.

1. Myth: Euthanasia is possible only where there is suffering that cannot be alleviated

This was the standard built into the Belgian euthanasia law, but its interpretation has been watered down to the point that it provides no protection. In the case of Tom’s mother, doctors knew that she was struggling with depression, in part because of distance from her family. And yet when she refused to reach out to them, they quickly concluded her suffering was incurable. By this logic, almost anything could be considered incurable.

2. Myth: Euthanasia must be approved by two independent doctors

One of the supposed safeguards is that a doctor’s decision must be confirmed by one, or in some cases two other doctors. And yet in the case of Tom’s mother, the doctors involved were members of the same pro-euthanasia organisation. Hardly an “independent” verification, but it was considered acceptable by the Belgian authorities. Moreover, in the weeks before her euthanasia, Tom’s mother made a 2,500 EUR payment to this organisation, which presents yet another possible conflict.

3. Myth: The paperwork must be completed in a timely way

According to the Belgian law, the official euthanasia form must be filed with the government within four working days. In the case of Tom’s mother, the government admits it was received at least two months late. And yet, when the Commission reviewed this form, it found no cause for concern.

4. Myth: Cases must be reviewed by an independent euthanasia review commission

Not only did the Belgian Commission fail to see the obvious issues with the form in this case, it has reviewed over 12,000 cases and only referred one for investigation to the prosecutor. That statistic is less surprising in light of the fact that the Commission has been co-chaired since its creation by a leading euthanasia activist, who happens to be the doctor who euthanised Tom’s mother.

5. Myth: There is a robust system for dealing with conflicts of interest within the euthanasia commission

Given the Commission is packed with doctors who advocate for and practice euthanasia, you might imagine it has a robust system for dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Instead, the Belgian government has told the European Court of Human Rights that its procedure simply requires a doctor to sit silently in the room while the rest of the Commission discusses whether or not their case should be referred for criminal investigation. It is hard to imagine a more useless system of oversight.

6. Myth: The system is open to external scrutiny

To maintain public confidence, it is important that the decisions of the Commission be subject to scrutiny. In the case of Tom’s mother, the Commission — led by the doctor who carried out the euthanasia — simply refused to release the form to her next of kin. When Tom filed a complaint, the prosecutor initially “misplaced” it. After locating it, he took the next three years investigating it to then conclude with a single-sentence letter stating there was insufficient evidence to proceed. And yet we now know that even a quick glance at the euthanasia form should have raised cause for significant concern.

7. Myth: The patient must have made a settled and voluntary decision

Tom’s mother was suffering from a diagnosed psychiatric condition at the point at which her life was ended by lethal injection. To satisfy this apparent requirement, the doctor simply scribbled on the form that she had been “asking for it for years.” And yet this doctor had only met her months earlier; he specialises in cancer, not psychiatry; and appears only to have been approached because of his unquestioning approach to euthanasia.

To those who would say, “this is just one case.” It is. But that is one life, one mother, and one grandmother too many. She leaves behind children and grandchildren who are still — years on — dealing with the fallout. And the issues identified in this case go much deeper. Who knows how many other tragedies have been nodded through by this defective system? Moreover, once these laws are passed, there is no logical stopping point. Their advocates push for more and more. That has happened in Belgium — where child euthanasia was legalised in 2012 — and in the Netherlands — which is debating making euthanasia available for elderly people who are “tired of life”, after already expanding the law to include those suffering with dementia.

As we grapple with the implications of euthanasia and assisted suicide, we owe it to ourselves, and to the sick and the vulnerable, to weigh up not just the “best case scenario” that some paint, but to wrestle with the dark reality that is revealed when we really pull back the curtain on these practices. The sad conclusion is that these so-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection. And the reality is that these laws are more likely to harm than to help the vulnerable.

New Zealand End of Life Choice Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Zealand is having a referendum on euthanasia as part of its October 17 federal election.

New Zealand's parliament passed a euthanasia bill in November 2019 by a vote of 69 to 51. To obtain the votes to pass the Act the government agreed to a referendum.

Some proponents of the End-of-Life Choices Act (Act) refer to the Oregon assisted suicide model to suggest that legalizing assisted death will not result in many deaths. This argument is false.

The New Zealand Act legalizes Canadian style (MAiD) euthanasia which means that there will be many deaths, not a few.

The New Zealand Act uses the following definition of assisted dying:

(a) the administration by an attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner of medication to the person to relieve the person’s suffering by hastening death; or 

(b) the self-administration by the person of medication to relieve their suffering by hastening death.

This means that the New Zealand Act is similar to the Canadian MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) model and not the Oregon model. Canada legalized death by (a) administration by an attending medical or nurse practitioner (done by lethal injection) and (b) self-administration (you take the lethal drugs yourself, whereas the Oregon model is limited to (b) self-administration.

Why is this important:

Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have legalized assisted death by euthanasia (lethal injection) and assisted suicide (self-administration of lethal drugs).

Canada legalized assisted death by lethal injection in 2016. In 2019 there were 5631 reported euthanasia deaths represented 2% of all deaths in Canada. 

The Oregon assisted suicide law came into effect in 1998, In 2019 there were 188 reported assisted suicide deaths represented about 0.5% of all deaths in Oregon.

The Netherlands euthanasia law which came into effect in 2002. In 2017 there were 6585 reported euthanasia (lethal injection) deaths representing almost 4.5% of all deaths.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide (a) administration by an attending medical or nurse practitioner (done by lethal injection) and (b) self-administration (taking the lethal drugs yourself) there will be exponentially more deaths than when the law is limited to assisted suicide, as in Oregon.

What is the difference?

Based on human experience, people are less likely to seek death by self administration (taking the lethal drugs) than by administration (lethal injection by another person). In other words, it is easier to have someone lethally inject you, than for you to take those same drugs yourself.

Euthanasia (lethal injection by another person) in most countries is a form of homicide because someone else causes the death, whereas death by self-administration is a form of assisting a suicide.

Abuse of the law.

Legalizing euthanasia will also lead to more abuse of the law. It is possible for someone to feel pressure and ask for assisted suicide, and it is possible that someone, who has the lethal drugs for assisted suicide, will be administered those drugs rather than self-administer. In the case of euthanasia physicians and nurse practitioners become part of the mode of pressure. 

For instance, in August 2016, Candice Lewis (25) while receiving treatment at a Newfoundland hospital was pressured to "request" an assisted death.

No one questions that Candice was very sick, but as Candice's mother told CBC news, the doctor pressured her to request physician-assisted death, Candice never asked for it.

In August 2019, Alan Nichols died by euthanasia, even after his family insisted that Alan was not competent to make this decision and that he was living with chronic depression.

In August 2017, a 5 year study sponsored by the Netherlands government showed significant increases in assisted deaths and continued abuse of the law.

In March 2018, we learned that the public prosecutor was investigating several controversial euthanasia deaths. The public prosecutor was also investigating a euthanasia group in the Netherlands after the death of a 19-year-old woman.

Margreet in the Netherlands was interviewed for the Fatal Flaws Film explaining how her mother died by euthanasia without request.

Then there is the case that Tom Mortier has brought to the European court of Human Rights, after the Belgian courts refused to hear it. The Belgian law appears to have been violated in the euthanasia death of Mortier's depressed mother. How many other euthanasia deaths have violated the law?

Euthanasia laws, whether or not they are called assisted death or Medical Aid in Dying, are designed to provide legal protection for the medical practitioner who is willing to kill another person.

The New Zealand End of Life Choices Act tightly protects medical or nurse practitioners who are given the right in law to kill while providing no effective oversight of the law.

Kiwi's will reject the End-of-Life Choices Act if they examine the experience with euthanasia in other jurisdictions.