six thousand souls extinguished: a project of the the ... · 1 derek humphry and mary...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of theThe Center for Bioethics and Culture Network
P.O.Box 20760, Oakland, CA 94620www.cbc-network.org/sixthousand
1
Testimony of Wesley J. Smith in Opposition to Legislation of Physician-Assisted Suicide inCalifornia (AB 651)Before the Senate Judiciary Committee “Informational Hearing,” June 20, 2006
Good afternoon. My name is Wesley J. Smith. I am an author, and consumer advocate. I
am a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney and consultant for the International
Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for
Bioethics and the Culture.
For more some thirteen years I have been deeply engaged in public policy debates about
the most important bioethical issues our nation and our states face. These include researching
and writing about the ongoing erosion of Hippocratic medical values in bioethics involving areas
such as assisted suicide. I am the author or coauthor of 11 books, including Forced Exit: The
Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder and Culture of Death: The Assault on
Medical Ethics in America, both of which deal substantially with the issue of assisted suicide.
Culture of Death was named “Best Health Book of the Year” at the 2001 Independent Publishers
Book Awards. Forced Exit has just been released in its third edition. Further details about my
credentials are attached to my written testimony.
My work in the fields in which I advocate is entirely secular, which I believe is
appropriate to the creation of public policy in a nation governed by the rule of law.
I have been invited to testify today as an opponent of AB 651, for which I thank the
Committee. However, I have been specifically instructed not to testify about the specifics of AB
651—either as originally written or as amended less than a week ago—in this informational
![Page 2: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement, Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement,
(New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1998), p. 30.2 See, for example, Elliot Cohen, Ph.D., “Permitted Suicide: Model Rules for Mental Health Counseling,”
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Vol. 23, No. 4, October 2001, pp. 279-294.
2
hearing, and so will instead address the issue of assisted suicide in a more general fashion
focusing on its likely impact on society’s perception of the intrinsic equal value of all human life.
There are two intellectual pillars that proponents argue justify legalizing assisted suicide.
The first is an assertion of a near-absolute right of personal autonomy. Accordingly, promoters
of assisted suicide generally believe that “the individual’s right to self-determination—to control
the time, place, and manner of death”—is a paramount liberty interest.1 The second ideological
foundation of assisted suicide advocacy is the belief that killing (ending life) can be an
acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering.
Advocacy for legalizing assisted suicide in this country is usually couched in terms that
would limit access to those who are terminally ill. But given the philosophical/ideological
principles that underlie the assisted suicide movement—that autonomy is paramount and ending
life is a valid answer to human suffering—restricting assisted suicide to the dying becomes
utterly illogical. After all, many people experience far greater suffering and for a far longer
period than people who are terminally ill. Thus, should the two fundamental premises of assisted
suicide advocacy become generally accepted by a broad swath of the medical professions and
among the public, there is little chance eligibility for “permitted” suicide would long remain
limited to the terminally ill.2
![Page 3: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
This isn’t a process that would happen instantaneously. The belief in the intrinsic
importance of human life is too deeply ingrained within our culture to collapse overnight. But
the sheer power of logic may be one of the most irresistible forces in human affairs. Over time, a
state sanctioned right of doctors or others to knowingly participate in the suicides or mercy
killings of suffering people would lead inexorably to a broader application of hastened death and
a steady erosion of the essential principle that each and every human life has equal moral value.
The Dysfunctional Context in Which Assisted Suicide Would be Practiced
In considering the cultural impact legalizing assisted suicide could have on our society,
let us first explore the dysfunctional context of health care in California in which assisted
suicides would be carried out. Arguments in favor of assisted suicide almost always depict the
act as occurring in an idealized world that does not exist. We are told to presume that decisions
to commit assisted suicide would take place in the bosoms of loving families, that suicides would
be facilitated by family doctors who have known the patient for decades and are intimately
familiar with their values, and that assisted suicide would only be used as a last resort engaged in
with great reluctance when nothing else could be done to alleviate unbearable pain.
But this “euthanasia world,” as I call it, doesn’t exist. There are 7.5 million people
without health insurance in this state—more than the entire population of Oregon—which means
almost by definition that they may not have access to quality medical treatment and proper care.
The economics of health care are increasingly driven by the HMO in which profits are made by
cutting costs, a system which many in this legislature have complained bitterly has resulted in the
![Page 4: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
chipping away of quality care. Some doctors are so stressed by the current system that patients
may have a mere 15 minutes or less within which to interact with their doctors.
The cost for the drugs used in assisted suicide is about $50. It could take $500,000 to
provide the patient with proper care so they don’t want assisted suicide. Should assisted suicide
become legalized and legitimized, the economic force of gravity is obvious. After all, what could
be a “cheaper” medical treatment than hastened death?
Perhaps that is why you don’t see poor people demonstrating in the streets or demanding
the right to assisted suicide: They are worried about receiving adequate care! Indeed, the terrible
problem of poorer Californians obtaining fair access to medical treatment is one reason why
LULAC, the largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States, has come out
unequivocally in opposition to legalizing assisted suicide.
Meanwhile, many of our families are under increasing strain. Debt is at an all time high,
and elder abuse is rampant. The temptation that would be posed by inheritance and life insurance
when families pondered whether to support a family member’s request for assisted suicide is
obvious. And think about now the despair caused by the all too frequent neglect of our seniors
and disabled people—too many of whom languish abandoned in nursing homes and other care
facilities—could affect a decision to seek a poison prescription when deciding whether to support
the legalization of hastened death.
Assisted suicide would be wrong even under the most ideal conditions. But in light of
these stark realities, and considering the frayed safety net in California, legalizing assisted suicide
![Page 5: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
3 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement, Freedom to Die: People, Politics, and the Right to Die Movement,
(1998, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY), p. 333.
5
in our state could have catastrophic consequences for the weak, vulnerable, depressed, and
unwanted.
Eventually, assisted suicide could come to be seen as a splendid way to save scarce
medical resources. Indeed, one of the world’s most prominent assisted suicide proponents,
Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (now, called Compassion and Choices),
acknowledged this concern when he stated in his most recent book, Freedom to Die:
A rational argument can be made for allowing PAS [physician-assisted
suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill,
as long as it is the voluntary wish of the mentally competent terminally
and incurably ill adult. There will likely come a time when PAS becomes
a commonplace occurrence for individuals who want to die and feel it is
the right thing to do by their loved ones. There is no contradicting the fact
that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final
days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short
time left would free resources for others. Hundreds of billions of dollars
could benefit those patients who not only can be cured but who want to
live. (Emphasis in the text.)3
Once this crass attitude seeped deeply into the culture, its stark utilitarian values could easily
breach the levy of Hippocratic values and adversely impact normal health care decision making,
further threatening the welfare of the elderly, disabled, and dying.
![Page 6: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Guidelines Will Not Protect Against Abuse
The usual response to such concerns by assisted suicide advocates is the blithe assurance
that “strict guidelines will protect against abuse.” At best, this is extremely naïve. Once we
create classes of people whose suicides the state’s public policy states can be legally facilitated, it
is easy for these people’s lives to come to be perceived as having less valuable than those who
are required by state policies to receive suicide prevention.
We are told repeatedly that Oregon demonstrates that legalizing assisted suicide is “safe.”
Yet, elder and youth suicide are acute problems in Oregon and state attempts to prevent suicide
are not aided by a law that explicitly validates the suicides of some Oregon residents—sending a
clear mixed message to Oregon’s suicidal citizens.
But be that as it may, little is truly known about the actual practice of assisted suicide in
Oregon since almost all of the information the state garners about what is happening depends on
self-reporting by lethally prescribing doctors—who are about as likely to tell the state that they
violated the law as they are to tell the IRS they cheated on their taxes. Further demonstrating the
empirical unreliability of the “Oregon statistics,” state agencies have no budget or authority to
engage in any meaningful oversight of assisted suicide activities. As Dr. Katrina Hedberg—the
lead author of most of the Oregon official annual reports—admitted to a British House of Lords
fact finding committee, “Not only do we not have the resources to do it [independently
![Page 7: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
4 Witness testimony before House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill
Bill, published in House of Lords Select Committee, Vol. II: Evidence. April 4, 2005, p. 266, Q. 615.5 Id. p. 363, Q. 592.6 N. Gregory Hamilton and Catherine Hamilton, “Competing Paradigms of Response to Assisted Suicide
Requests in Oregon,” American Journal of Psychiatry, June 2005; pp. 1060-1065.
7
investigate assisted suicide] but we do not have any legal authority to insert ourselves.4
Moreover, even the information that the state does collect is destroyed once the annual reports
are published—meaning there is no way to independently verify the data that Oregon has
reported since its law went into effect.5
Still, we know about a few cases of apparent abuse. One of the most disturbing is that of
a cancer patient named Michael P. Freeland, who gave permission for his medical records to be
reviewed for a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of American Psychiatry. To the
best of my knowledge, it is the only case so far in which professional investigators had access to
the actual medical records of a patient who received a lethal prescription under Oregon’s law.
The authors of the study, psychiatrist N. Gregory Hamilton and Catherine Hamilton, a
social worker, discovered that “Mr. A.” (Freeland), had been issued a lethal prescription nearly 2
years before he actually died of natural causes.6 (Dr. Hamilton is the former president of
Physicians for Compassionate Care, an organization dedicated to improving palliative care for
the dying, but which also opposes Oregon’s law. He and Catherine Hamilton are married.) This
is a matter of striking interest. Not only was Freeland apparently not terminally ill as defined by
Oregon's law (which requires that a doctor reasonably believe that a patient will die within 6
months) when he first received his lethal prescription, but even more alarmingly, he was allowed
to keep his cache of suicide pills even after being diagnosed as having "depressive disorder,"
![Page 8: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7 Id, p. 1062.8 Id.
8
"chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood," "intermittent delirium," for which he was
hospitalized and declared mentally incompetent by a court.7
Here are the details: Mr. Freeland was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000. In early 2001
he received a lethal prescription from Dr. Peter Reagan, an assisted suicide advocate who is often
referred patients whose own doctors refuse to assist the suicides of their patients. On January 23,
2002, more than a year after receiving Reagan's lethal script, Freeland was admitted to a hospital
psychiatric ward for depression with suicidal and possibly homicidal thoughts. A social worker
went to Freeland's home and found it "uninhabitable," with "heaps of clutter, rodent feces, ashes
extending two feet from the fireplace into the living room, lack of food and heat, etc. Thirty-two
firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition were removed by the police." Amazingly, the
"lethal medications" that had been prescribed more than a year before were left in the house.
Freeland was hospitalized for a week and then discharged on January 30. The
discharging psychiatrist noted with approval that his guns had been removed, "which resolves the
major safety issue," but wrote that Freeland's lethal prescription remained "safely at home."
Freeland was permitted to keep the overdose even though the psychiatrist reported he would
"remain vulnerable to periods of delirium." In-home care was considered likely to assist with
this problem, but a January 24 chart notation noted that Freeman "does have his life-ending
medications that he states he may or may not use, so that [in-home care] may or may not be a
moot point."8
![Page 9: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9 Id., p. 1063.
9
The day after his discharge, the psychiatrist wrote a letter to the court in support of
establishing a guardianship for Freeland, writing, "he is susceptible to periods of confusion and
impaired judgment." The psychiatrist concluded that Freeland was unable to handle his own
finances and that his cognitive impairments were unlikely to improve. He lived under
supervision for a brief time, but was soon home alone with ready access to his suicide drugs.
It was during this period that Freeland called Physicians for Compassionate Care for help.
Rather than dying alone by assisted suicide, he was instead cared for by the Hamiltons and by his
friends--who assured the now imminently dying man "that they valued him and did not want him
to kill himself." Freeland was properly treated for depression with medication. He received
good pain control, including a morphine pump. Best of all, he was reunited with his estranged
daughter and died knowing she loved him and would cherish his memory.9
Based on their review of the facts and circumstances surrounding Freeland receiving a
lethal prescription and being allowed to keep the drugs while psychotic, the Hamiltons reached
important conclusions about the law’s discriminatory effect on patients and its impact on mental
health professionals:
The legalization of doctor-assisted suicide in Oregon has resulted in the
introduction of competing paradigms—the traditional clinical approach
[Removing lethal means is central to the clinical treatment of suicide
symptoms] and the assisted suicide competency model [providing lethal
![Page 10: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10 Id., p. 1064.
10
means]—for responding to suicidal thoughts and behaviors in seriously ill
individuals…These competing models appear to be based on
incompatible underlying assumptions about the value of protecting life
depending on predictions of how long a patient might live…We conclude
that the attempt to mix models is confusing to both clinicians and patients
and endangers seriously ill patients, particularly those with a history of
pre-existing mental illness.10
Or to put it another way, the very mental health professionals responsible for treating this
delusional man expressed utter indifference to his committing suicide, whereas had he presented
the same symptoms without having cancer he would undoubtedly have received rigorous suicide
prevention and treatment. The only conclusion to draw from such a disparity is that because he
had obtained a suicide prescription, the value of Mr. Freeland’s life was perceived to be of lesser
value to his own psychiatrist.
The Threat to the Disabled and Elderly
![Page 11: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11 As quoted in, Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die,
(New York, Encounter Books, 2006), p. 193-94.
11
Disability rights activists are the most committed and effective opponents of legalizing
assisted suicide. This is highly significant given that disability rights activists tend to be liberal
politically, pro-choice on abortion, and secular in their world views. Thus like many assisted
suicide opponents, their opposition isn’t based on religion, but rather, their understanding that
legalizing assisted suicide—even if formally restricted to the terminally ill—would validate
discriminatory public attitudes that are profoundly threatening to people with disabilities.
Paul Longmore, a nationally respected disability rights activist, writer, and associate
professor of history at California State University at San Francisco, has put it this way:
Current euthanasia activists talk a lot about personal autonomy and choice.
Well, for people with disabilities who have opted for assisted suicide, it
was a spurious choice. These are people who have been denied the ability
to choose about virtually every other option in their lives: They have been
segregated out of society; they have been denied the right to work; they
have been discriminated against in getting an education; they have been
blocked from expressing themselves romantically and sexually; they have
been penalized for marrying by having public benefits shut off, including
desperately needed health insurance; they have been shunned by loved
ones and friends. In virtually every case in which a person with a disability
has sought legal assistance in ending their lives, they have been
discriminated against in most if not all of these ways.11
![Page 12: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12 Diane Coleman, “Not Dead Yet,” in Kathleen Foley, MD, and Herbert Hendin, M D, (eds.), The Case
Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End of Life Care , (2002, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD), p. 221.
12
Diane Coleman, one of the nation’s most prominent disability rights activists and founder
of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights organization that opposes legalizing assisted suicide and
advocates for equal treatment for disabled people in the health care system, has expressed similar
views:
The widespread public image of severe disability as a fate worse than
death is not exactly a surprise to the disability community. Disability
rights activists have fought against these negative stereotypes of disability
for decades in the effort to achieve basic civil rights protections. What has
been a surprise for many advocates is the boldness with which these
stereotypes are asserted as fact by proponents of assisted suicide, and the
willingness of the press and the public to accept them, without even
checking them against the views of people who themselves live with
severe disabilities. …These stereotypes then become grounds for carving
out a deadly exception to longstanding laws and public policies about
suicide prevention.12
These prejudices seep into the delivery of health care undermining the quality of care
received by the disabled. Examples of such biases are routinely reported in disability rights
literature. The following excerpt from an article in the disability health and wellness journal,
One Step Ahead’s Second Opinion, is typical of the impediments placed in the paths of disabled
people:
![Page 13: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13 Advanced Directives and D isability, One Step Ahead’s Second Opinion, 2 No. 1, (Winter 1995).14
For purposes of this testimony, euthanasia is when a physician lethally injects a patient. Assisted suicide
occurs when a physician knowingly provides the lethal means for a patient to commit suicide.
13
Robert Powell has lived with partial paralysis since childhood and learned
Two years ago he has a heart condition. . . . [The] hospital staff repeatedly
asked him how much he wanted done to save his life should his condition
fail to respond to routine treatment. Having barely reached middle age, he
assured them he wanted aggressive measures to save his life. Staff
continued to question him about his decision. They finally requested a
psychiatric consult because they felt he was ‘having trouble accepting
death.’”13
Facing and overcoming this type of prejudice is difficult enough when the law values all
lives equally. But with the assisted suicide movement now claiming that suicide should be
sanctioned by the state in some cases, with the growing utilitarianism in bioethics, and in the
context of society’s prejudice against people with disabilities, many in the disability rights
movement are convinced that they are the actual targets of the assisted suicide movement.
The Dutch Experience
We need only look to the experience of the Netherlands to see that disability rights
activists are right about the destructive social forces that assisted suicide ideology unleashes.
The Dutch have permitted euthanasia and assisted suicide since 1973.14 Euthanasia and assisted
![Page 14: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
15 Euthanasia Case Leeuwarden-1973” (Excerp ts from court’s decision), trans. W alter Lagerway, Issues in
Law and Medicine 3 (1988) pp. 429, 439-42.
14
suicide became an integral part of Dutch medicine after a court ruling that refused to
meaningfully punish a physician, Geetruida Postma, who had euthanized her mother.15 The court
accepted the premise—supported by both the prosecution and the defense—that most Dutch
doctors favored euthanasia in some cases. Accordingly, even though convicted of murder, Dr.
Postma received only a one-week suspended sentence and a year’s probation.
Other court decisions soon followed, with each widening and further liberalizing the
conditions under which euthanasia and assisted suicide would not be punished. Thus, even
though these life-terminating practices remained technically illegal until 2002, they became
deeply entrenched in Dutch medical practice.
At this point it is important to recall that when euthanasia was first accepted in the
Netherlands, it was supposed to be a rare event, to be resorted to only in the most unusual cases
of “intolerable suffering”—just as we are told it will be here in California. The guidelines were
designed specifically to keep assisted suicide occurrences few and far between by establishing
demanding conditions that had to be met, at the risk of criminal prosecution. Over time,
however—precisely because suicide and mercy killing were deemed acceptable answers to
human suffering—doctors began to interpret the death regulations loosely and even ignore them
altogether. In the few circumstances where the law took notice, the courts accommodated
expanded euthanasia through continual loosening of the meaning of the guidelines.
Expanding the Euthanasia License: In 1999, a statistical analysis of Dutch euthanasia
practices published in Journal of Medical Ethics concluded that the Dutch promise of “effective
![Page 15: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
16 Henk Jochemsen and John Keown, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999; 25: 16-21.
17 Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Euthanasia in the Netherlands: The Policy and Practice of Mercy Killing,
Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004), p. 176.18 My interview with Dr. Gunning in preparation for writing Forced Exit, October 18, 1995.
15
regulation ring hollow” and that euthanasia in the Netherlands “remains beyond effective
control.”16 And for good reason: As University of Haifa’s Raphael Cohen-Almagoran a self-
described ideological believer in euthanasia admitted in his 2004 book, Euthanasia in the
Netherlands: The Policy and Practice of Mercy Killing, Dutch euthanasia policy, “does not work
because all of the guidelines, without exception, are broken time and time again.”17
But the issue goes much deeper than doctors refusing to obey and law enforcement
authorities refusing to enforce the rules. What euthanasia really did to the Dutch was to
profoundly alter the nation’s conception of right and wrong. With the widespread acceptance of
assisted suicide consciousness in the Netherlands, the guideline limitations became mere window
dressing that made little actual difference at the bedside to doctors or, indeed, to much of the
general public. Finding the proverbial exception to the rule became a standard practice, which in
turn, soon changed the exception into the rule. The official guidelines then expanded to formally
authorize what was already being done.
The words of the late physician, Dr. K. F. Gunning, perhaps the most notable Dutch
opponent of euthanasia, need to be heeded: “Once you accept killing as a solution for a single
problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a
solution.”18 And indeed since 1973 Dutch doctors have gone from killing the terminally ill who
ask for it, to the chronically ill who ask for it, to the disabled who ask for it, to depressed people
who aren’t even physically ill who ask for it.
![Page 16: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
19 Gene Kaufman, “State v. Chabot: A Euthanasia Case Note,” Ohio Northern University Law Review, 20
No. 3 (1994), p. 816-17.20 Id. P. 817.21 Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, The Case Against Assisted Suicide, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2002), p. 110.22 Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die, (New York,
Encounter Books, 2006), p. 118.23 Foley, Hendin, The Case Against Assisted Suicide, p. 110.
16
Assisting the suicides of the deeply depressed who are not physically ill received the
explicit approval of the Dutch Supreme Court in the death of Hilly Bosscher. Bosscher wanted
to kill herself because she had lost her two sons—one to suicide in 1986 and the other to brain
cancer in 1991. Wanting to join her children in death, Bosscher moved the graves of her two
sons to the same cemetery and purchased a burial plot for herself so that she could be buried
between them.19
Bosscher began to attend meetings of the Dutch Euthanasia Society, where she met Dr.
Boudewijn Chabot, a psychiatrist. She told Chabot that she didn’t want therapy, “because it
would loosen the bonds with her deceased sons.”20 Chabot took her as a patient anyway and met
with her on four occasions between August 2 and September 7, 1991. Chabot did not attempt to
treat her. Rather, he interviewed her to determine her prognosis. After these interviews and his
consultations, believing her to be suffering from “incurable grief”—and despite the complete
absence of any physical illness—he helped Bosscher kill herself on September 28, 1991.21
Chabot was prosecuted, although it was never contemplated that he would be jailed or
otherwise meaningfully punished.22 Indeed, the government’s own witness supported the
assisted suicide.23 The Dutch Supreme Court, with the minor caveat that Chabot erred by not
having a colleague independently examine the patient, validated Chabot’s actions. The basis of
the ruling was that the law cannot distinguish between suffering caused by physical illness and
![Page 17: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
24 Agnes van der Heide, et. al., “Medical End-of-Life Decisions Made for Neonates and Infants in the
Netherlands,” The Lancet, 350, 1997.25 Astrid M. Vrakiing, et. al., “Medical End-of-Life Decisions Made for Neonates and Infants in the
Netherlands, 1995-2001,” The Lancet, Vol. 365, April 9, 2005.26 “No Prosecution for Dutch Baby Euthanasia,” Reuters, January 22, 2005.
17
suffering caused by mental anguish—which, of course, is where the sheer logic of assisted
suicide leads.
Non Voluntary Euthanasia and Eugenic Infanticide: Perhaps the clearest indication of
how assisted suicide and euthanasia affects our perceptions of the value of human life can be
seen in the non voluntary mercy killings that permeate Dutch euthanasia practice.
In the Netherlands, infants are killed because they have birth defects, and doctors justify
the practice. A 1997 study published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, revealed how
deeply pediatric euthanasia had metastasized into Dutch neonatal medical practice. According to
the report, doctors killed approximately 8 percent of all infants who died in the Netherlands in
1995. Assuming this to be typical, this amounts to approximately 80-90 infanticides per year.
Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involve
infants who did not depend on life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that 45
percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians, who responded to study’s
questionnaires, had killed infants.24 A follow up study of end-of-life decisions made for infants
published in the April 9, 2005 issue found that nothing had changed. In 2001, “in 8%” of cases,
drugs were administered to infants “with the explicit intention to hasten death.”25
In 2004, Groningen University Medical Center made international headlines when it
admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the “Groningen Protocol,” infanticide
guidelines the hospital had utilized when killing 15-20 disabled newborns.26 The Protocol creates
![Page 18: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
27 Eduard Verhagen and Peter J. J. Sauer, “The Groningen Protocol— Euthansia in Severely Ill Newborns,”
New England Journal of Medicine, Marcy 10, 2005.
18
three categories of killable infants: infants “with no chance of survival,” infants with a “poor
prognosis and are dependent on intensive care,” and “infants with a hopeless prognosis,”
including those “not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality
of life…is predicted.”27
In addition to killing babies, Dutch doctors routinely euthanize patients who have not
asked to die. Repeated studies demonstrate that each year at least 900-1000 Dutch patients are
non-voluntarily euthanized by their doctors. The practice even has a name, “termination without
request or consent,” and even though this is formally considered murder under Dutch law, it is
rarely prosecuted and almost never meaningfully punished.
Making matters worse—and most germane to the purposes of this informational
hearing—despite the clear abuses in the Netherlands, despite the uncontestable fact that doctors
are now euthanizing babies and people who have not asked to be killed—the Dutch people
support their country’s euthanasia policy. And here we see the greatest problem with opening the
door to suicide as an answer to the problem of suffering caused by illness. Once the law states
that assisted suicide is right, the people’s own values may soon follow—opening the door to a
fall off of the vertical moral cliff.
Drawing Conclusions
Based on the above, what can we conclude? First, the slippery slope is very real. The
Dutch have proved that Dr. Gunning was right; once killing is accepted as a solution for one
![Page 19: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
28 L.A. Roscoe, et. al., “Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Cases of Euthanasia in Oakland County, Michigan, 1990-
1998,” New England Journal of Medicine, 343: 1735-1736, December 7, 2000
19
problem, tomorrow it will be seen as the solution for hundreds of problems. Once we accept the
assisted suicide of terminally ill patients, we will—over time—come to accept the killing of
chronically ill patients, disabled people, depressed patients, and ultimately perhaps, even
children. Indeed, we saw this slippery slope phenomenon during the assisted suicide spree of
Jack Kevorkian, in which more than 70% of the people he assisted in suicide were not terminally
ill—and five weren’t even ill upon autopsy.28
Second, adopting suicide as an acceptable answer to human suffering eventually changes
popular outlooks. The law not only reflects our values, but in our diverse age, it tells us right
from wrong. Accordingly, once suicide is redefined as medical treatment, it becomes
transformed from “bad” into “good.” Thus, the guidelines intended to “protect against abuse”
eventually are viewed not as protections but instead as hurtles separating sick and dying patients
from the beneficence of death. In such an intellectual and cultural milieu, it becomes easy to
justify ignoring or violating “guidelines.”
Third, legalizing assisted suicide can distort the attitude of medical professionals toward
their sickest patients. This would be especially true in a medical economic system dominated by
cost containment and managed care where profits come from reducing the level of services.
Fourth, legalizing assisted suicide sends the implied message that people who are
diagnosed with a terminal illness have lives less worthy of being protected than those of other
suicidal people. I have seen this very paradigm in action as a hospice volunteer.
![Page 20: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
29 Robert Salamanca, “I Don’t Want a Choice to Die,” San Francisco Chronicle , February 19, 1997.
20
Robert Salamanca of Pleasanton was a wonderful friend who I met as hospice volunteer
when he was dying of Lou Geherig’s disease. Bob believed strongly that assisted suicide
advocacy diminished the value of the lives of people like him. Indeed, he felt so strongly about
this he wrote an important op/ed column in the San Francisco Chronicle (while completely
paralyzed) which stated in part:
Euthanasia advocates believe they are doing people like me a favor. They
are not. The negative emotions toward the terminally ill and disabled
generated by their advocacy is actually at the expense of the ‘dying’ and
their families and friends, who often feel disheartened and without self
assurance because of a false picture of what it is like to die created by
these enthusiasts who prey on the misinformed.
What we, the terminally ill, need is exactly the opposite—to realize how
important our lives are. And our loved ones, friends, and indeed society,
need to help us feel that we are loved and appreciated unconditionally.”29
Robert was right. The proper approach to death and dying is to increase our levels of care
and compassion, not permit doctors to coolly write lethal prescriptions. Moreover, whatever our
beliefs might be about an idealized system of assisted suicide, in the real world of California
today, legalizing assisted suicide would be dangerous and reckless. With our dysfunctional
health care system, high rates of elder abuse, already alarming significant suicide levels,
![Page 21: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
pronounced economic uncertainties, divisions of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, class,
and immigration status, and the concomitant lack of mutual trust, legalizing assisted suicide
would be bad medicine and even worse public policy.
Thank you for you attention and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
WESLEY J. SMITH
Award winning author and lawyer Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute,an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a specialconsultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. In May 2004, because of his work inbioethics, he was named by the National Journal as one of the nation’s top expert thinkers inbioengineering.
Smith left the full time practice of law in 1985 to pursue a career in writing and public advocacy.He has authored or co-authored eleven books. He formerly collaborated with Ralph Nader, co-authoring four books with consumer advocate: Winning the Insurance Game (1990), The FrugalShopper (1991), Collision Course: The Truth About Airline Safety (1993) and No Contest:Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996). He also co-authored (withEric M. Chevlen, MD), Power Over Pain, a consumer’s guide to obtaining good pain control.
![Page 22: Six Thousand Souls Extinguished: A project of the The ... · 1 Derek Humphry and Mary Clement,Freedom to Die: People Politics and the Right-to-Die Movement, (New York, St. Martin’s](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060217/5f06310d7e708231d416c10a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
His book Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (1997), abroad-based criticism of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement, has become a classic in anti-euthanasia advocacy. First published in 1997 and in revised paperback in 2003, it was updatedagain in 2006 and published by Encounter Books under the new title: Forced Exit: Euthanasia,Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die.
Smith’s Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, a warning about thedangers of the modern bioethics movement, was named one of the Ten Outstanding Books of theYear and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent Publisher Book Awards). Smith’sConsumer’s Guide to a Brave New World (2005), explores the morality, science, and businessaspects of human cloning, stem cell research, and genetic engineering. He is also conductingresearch for a planned book about the animal liberation movement.
Smith’s writing and opinion columns on assisted suicide, bioethics, the morality of humancloning, the dangers of animal liberation, legal ethics, and public affairs have appeared nationallyand internationally, including in Newsweek, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USAToday, Forbes, The Weekly Standard, National Review, First Things, The Age (Australia),Western Journal of Medicine, and the American Journal of Bioethics. He has also beenpublished repeatedly in regional publications including in the San Francisco Chronicle, theSeattle Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Rocky Mountain News, the Detroit News, theOrange County Register, the New York Post, and many other newspapers throughout the nation. He is also a frequent source for journalists reporting on issues about which Smith advocates.
Throughout the course of his career in public advocacy, Smith has appeared on thousands oftelevision and radio talk/interview programs, including on such national programs as ABCNightline, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, CNN Crossfire, CNN World Report, theCBS Evening News, Coast to Coast, the Dennis Prager syndicated radio show, the MikeGallagher syndicated radio show, the Tony Snow radio show, Afternoons with Al Kresta,EWTN, CSPAN-Book TV, Fox News, and CNN Talk Back Live. He has also appearedinternationally on Voice of America, CNN International, and on programs originating in GreatBritain (BBC), Australia (ABC), Canada (CBC), New Zealand, Germany, China, and Mexico.
Smith is often called upon by members of legislative and executive branches of government togive advice upon issues within his fields of expertise. He has testified as an expert witness infront of federal and state legislative committees, and has counseled government leadersinternationally about matters of mutual concern.
Smith is an international lecturer and public speaker, appearing frequently at political, university,medical, legal, disability rights, bioethics, religious, and community gatherings across the UnitedStates, Europe, Canada, South Africa, Mexico, and Australia.