Bill English Will Be Proved Right

Why I Oppose the End of Life Choice Bill, in Plain English

Bill English
Stuff

Later today, our MPs will cast their final vote on the End of Life Choice Bill. It all comes down to deciding whether the bill, with its changes, will ultimately deliver what it says.

My position on euthanasia is well known. I have spoken many times about why I am opposed in principle. But to my former colleagues I say, even if you agree in principle, this is not the bill to deliver euthanasia and assisted suicide to New Zealanders.

This bill, if it passes, will make New Zealand a less safe place for the old, the vulnerable, the depressed and the disabled, and here are five reasons why.

Firstly, it does not provide real protection from coercion. Talk to any doctor and they will tell you it is virtually impossible to detect subtle emotional coercion, and even overt coercion, at the best of times. Yet many people will be "signed off" by medical practitioners with little or no understanding of the patient's family or social history, let alone medical history. The law requires doctors only to "do their best" – hardly an adequate measure of robust clinical care standards.

Secondly, I know that many MPs will be finely tuned to the "hard cases". However, for all the talk about narrowing the legislation down, this bill is much broader than the new Victorian law, as well as those states in the United States where only assisted suicide is available. We know that, when euthanasia is included, the numbers accessing it are at least 10 times greater. This bill is "overkill" – if the argument was really about the hard cases, then it would be a much tighter bill.

Murderous Intent Towards Down Syndrome Children

Mothers Reveal Huge Pressure 

"Abort Babies With Down's Syndrome!"

The Christian Institute
England & Wales

Mothers who refuse to abort their children with Down’s syndrome are pressured by medics to change their decision, a report has revealed.

One mum whose child is now five-years-old told how even at 38 weeks pregnant she was being offered an abortion.  Another mother said medical professionals told her they could leave her baby to die if it was struggling after birth.

The report, from Positive About Down Syndrome (PADS), revealed that 69 per cent of women were offered an abortion after they were told their baby had Down’s syndrome.  There is very limited support and an overriding assumption to terminate.   Even after informing medical professionals that they wished to keep their child, 46 per cent of mothers were asked if they wanted to change their decision.

Nicola Enoch, founder of PADS, said: “Women are making life or death decisions influenced by outdated and prejudicial views by many medical professionals.

Five Myths About Palliative Care

Taking Care of the Dying

Voice for Life--a site opposed to euthanasia and promoting palliative care--has put up a useful summary of five myths often encountered about palliative care of the terminally ill or aged.


https://www.facebook.com/203953359629611/posts/2476963512328573?s=1130283936&v=i&sfns=mo

It's worth reading.

JT

Euthanasia

Practitioners Sounding Alarm 

Developments in Europe

Christian Info


The law decriminalizing euthanasia in Belgium was passed in May 2002. This law was intended to create a framework allowing a patient to make a request for euthanasia and a doctor to access it under certain conditions, without the doctor is in a position to commit a criminal offense.

Since Belgium has taken this step, the debate on the legalization of euthanasia has been taking place in France and elsewhere in Europe. It has even become a campaign theme in Spain . Yet, with 17 years of hindsight on Belgian practices, many practitioners are sounding the alarm.

The Belgian collective  Euthanasie Stop , made up of 43 people including 35 doctors and medical professors, a lawyer, an honorary magistrate, a palliative care ethicist, a rabbi, an imam and a canon, decided to inform and question. 

"This website presents itself as a space of public expression, open to all those who wish to make a discordant voice heard. "

Among them, the doctor oncologist at the University Hospital Leuven is at the forefront of this bioethical debate. In his book Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Lessons from Belgium , an international panel of experts examines the implications of legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. These experts thoroughly analyze Belgian data and question "one of the most difficult ethical issues of our time, using law, philosophy and medical disciplines".

In France, the debate is decided between the doctors. If in 2013, an IPSOS survey revealed that 60% of the surveyed physicians were generally in favor of "active" euthanasia (which involves the act of a third party who gives a dying person a lethal substance or provides it), many are not in favor.

Jean Leonetti, author of the 2005 law on patients' rights and end of life, and co-author of the 2016 law, spoke very clearly about his fears regarding the legalization of euthanasia in France. , for  Le Parisien. 

"I continue to defend the idea that giving death to a person, even at his request, constitutes a frank rupture of fraternity and solidarity. It is not because people ask for it that we must meet their expectations. "

In 2018, the Unit and Palliative Care Team doctors in the Northern Department testified to the "intentionality of their mission", which "is never to shorten life but to relieve symptoms." He then spoke in these terms on Le Figaro Santé .

Don't Be Deceived

NZ Contemplates The Killing Fields

MP David Seymour has proposed a Bill to authorize euthanasia in New Zealand.  It appears to face substantial opposition, but the proponents are cunning indeed.  They are in the middle of trying all kinds of tricks to misdirect their opponents.  Central to this effort is the claim that, if euthanasia becomes legal in New Zealand, it will be restricted to just a few kinds of extreme circumstances.  Their assurances ring hollow.

One plank of their edifice has been to point to Canada as an example of very carefully restricted killing.  Canada shows that a carefully written euthanasia law can restrict the application of killing to just a few, extreme cases.  Except that it doesn't.  Canada is fast becoming another Land of the Killing Fields.

Here is a piece in the NZ Herald from Dr Sinead Donnelly exposing the Canadian myth.

Canada's Euthanasia Law Authorises Far More Killing Than Claimed
As the time approaches for Parliament's Justice Committee to report back on David Seymour's euthanasia and assisted suicide bill, it is timely to carefully review the impact of legalisation in countries like Canada, often cited by Seymour as exemplary.

Seven Canadian doctors published a 2018 World Medical Journal article, "Euthanasia in Canada: a cautionary tale", endorsed by 57 other Canadian doctors. They wrote, "As Canadians, we are saddened by this situation, but we hope that our experience and observations will serve as a warning for our colleagues in other countries, and their patients".

The Canadian law allows for killing patients when they consent.  At first glance it appears very restrictive, applicable only in the most severe cases of human suffering.  When such cases emerge then killing the patient is acceptable, provided the patient agrees.  But the fishy thing about "human rights" arguments is that they resemble the slippery eel.

Belgium's Curse

Pain Management Became A Death Prescription

Sophie Druenne witnessed the scourge of Belgium's legalized euthanasia framework and the devaluing of human life by doctors charged with protecting it.

 Lillian Quinones
The Federalist

Upon administering a lethal dose, the doctor left the room. But the patient was not dying. For Sophie Druenne, a palliative care nurse working under the Belgian physician who had approved the euthanasia request, this was a breaking point.

“The situation was so absurd that we were laughing,” Sophie told me at the start of our interview. “We had to call the practitioner back to tell him that the patient was still alive and that we had to give him an additional injection. And I caught myself laughing in the course of protecting myself from what was happening.”

Recounting the story to her friends and family outside the hospital, Sophie realized the horror of this situation and began to question Belgium’s so-called social experiment with euthanasia. Legalized in 2002, euthanasia was decriminalized under certain conditions. Its scope continues to widen, with the inclusion of minors in 2016, and now lawmakers debate broadening that scope to include psychiatric patients. It wasn’t these laws, however, that changed Sophie’s opinion toward her country’s euthanasia policies, but working in Belgium’s integrated palliative care system.

We Warned What Would Happen. . .

More Than a Quarter of Deaths in Holland are "Induced"

John Burger
Aleteia

Fifteen years after the Netherlands decriminalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, more than 25 percent of all deaths in the nation are induced, rather than by illness or other natural causes.

That figure is based on statistics from 2017 and includes almost 6,600 cases of euthanasia; 1,900 suicides and some 32,000 people killed through a practice called palliative sedation, according to an article in the Guardian,  https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand-has-euthanasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying

In the article, journalist Christopher de Bellaigue traces the history of euthanasia in the Netherlands from when it was introduced for extreme cases (“unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement”) to the point where some are advocating for a legal pill that practically anyone can take in case they are tired of living.

“The process of bringing in euthanasia legislation began with a desire to deal with the most heartbreaking cases—really terrible forms of death,” said Theo Boer, who teaches ethics at the Theological University of Kampen. “But there have been important changes in the way the law is applied. We have put in motion something that we have now discovered has more consequences than we ever imagined.”  Boer is a former member of one of the five regional boards that were set up to review every act of euthanasia and hand cases over to prosecutors if irregularities are detected, de Bellaigue explained.

“One of the reasons why euthanasia became more common after 2007 is that the range of conditions considered eligible expanded, while the definition of ‘unbearable suffering’ that is central to the law was also loosened,” wrote de Bellaigue.

NZ's "Assisted Death" Bill

Check the Detail

Maggie Barry
National Party MP

As deputy chairwoman of the justice select committee, I've been listening to some very well considered submissions on the controversial euthanasia and assisted suicide bill before Parliament.
There were 36,000 individuals and groups who wrote to Parliament with their views on the End of Life Choice Bill. Ten per cent have indicated that they would like to be heard in person, which the committee has promised to do.

So we have extended the reporting deadline from September to next March. While I will listen attentively and respectfully to everyone's viewpoint, I remain concerned at the lack of adequate safeguards to protect our most vulnerable.

A troubling aspect emerging from the public discussions is the large number of people who say they are in favour of the bill but who admit that they have not actually read it, claiming they don't care about the detail, they just want to have the option.

Have you ever heard of anyone who did not want to die with dignity or be treated with compassion? Rather than being lulled by the wording around this poorly drafted bill, I've been urging people to delve deeper - it's vital to know the details when stakes are so high and protections for the vulnerable so low.

Many incorrectly assume the law only applies to the terminally ill, but it would actually licence doctors to end the life of anyone with a "grievous, irremediable condition".

Wipe Them Out . . . All of Them

Belgium’s Euthanasia Moral Abyss

By Wesley J. Smith
National Review Online

Belgium legalized lethal-jab euthanasia in 2002. Since that time, medicalized homicide has grown increasingly radical.

Now, MercatorNet has published a story based on a translation of the “Belgium Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia” — the nation’s official report on patient-killing by doctors. It makes for very chilling reading.

Here are some lowlights:

• Deaths by legal euthanasia have increased nearly tenfold (982%) from 235 in 2003 — the first full year of legalisation — to 2,309 in 2017 (my emphasis).
  
• Organ donation [conjoined with euthanasia] has been reported in 8 patients for the years 2016 – 2017. Patients had either a nervous system disorder or a mental and behavioral disorder. 
  
• In 2017 there were 375 cases of reported euthanasia of people whose deaths were not expected in the near future.
  
• In 2017 some 87 (3.76%) cases involved no physical suffering at all. [!!!] This included 14 cancer cases and 15 other cases of physical illness. There were also 18 cases of “polypathology” as well as 40 cases of mental ill health. The psychic suffering, apart from psychiatric conditions, included “addiction, loss of autonomy, loneliness, despair, loss of dignity, despair at the thought of losing ability to maintain social contacts, etc.”.
  
• Three children have so far been killed under the Belgian law in 2016 and 2017. These were a 17-year-old child who was suffering from muscular dystrophy; a nine-year-old child, who had a brain tumour, and an 11 year old child, who was suffering from cystic fibrosis.
  
• Between 2014 and 2017 two patients who were in an irreversible coma after a suicide attempt were euthanized based on an advance directive 5 months and 35 months respectively before the suicide attempt.
  
• A total of 201 people with psychiatric disorders were killed by euthanasia in Belgium between 2014 and 2017 including for mood disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder (73 cases); organic mental disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer’s (60 cases); personality and behavioural disorders (23 cases); neurotic disorders, and disorders related to stressors including posttraumatic stress disorder (16 cases); schizophrenia and psychotic disorders (11 cases); organic mental disorders, including autism (10 cases) and complex cases involving a combination of several categories (8 cases).

I note that there is no mention of joint-geriatric-euthanasia cases — elderly couples killed together for fear of future grief or not wanting to be widowed, etc. — of which I know of at least three cases.

The carnage so bloodlessly described in the Belgian report demonstrates vividly the consequences to a society when it generally accepts killing as a proper answer to human suffering — or even, it now seems, the fear of future suffering.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

We Have Seen the Future . . .

It is Belgian

Belgium Euthanizes Hundreds of Disabled and Mentally Disabled People, Including Three Children

Alex Schadenberg
LifeSiteNews


The media is reporting that the Belgian euthanasia data has been released. The data shows that the number of euthanasia deaths continues to increase, euthanasia deaths for conditions related to aging have skyrocketed and three children died by euthanasia.

There is no sign that the problems of euthanasia without request and unreported euthanasia deaths has been reduced.

The basic data.
In 2016 there were 2028 reported euthanasia deaths up from 2021 in 2015.
In 2017 there were 2309 reported euthanasia deaths, a 14% increase from the previous year.
There were 954 reported Belgian euthanasia deaths in 2010 representing a 242% increase in 7 years.

Since 2010, Belgium has expanded euthanasia to include children, people with mental or behavioral conditions and people who are not dying but have chronic conditions. The data indicates that in 2016/17 there were, reportedly, 3 children who died by euthanasia, 77 people with mental or behavior conditions and 710 people with sight loss or incontinence or conditions related to disability or age.

When releasing the 2015 euthanasia data, Wim Distelmans, the chairman of the Euthanasia Evaluation and Control commission told the media that they cannot say for certain the actual number of euthanasia deaths. Distelmans stated: 

“Remember, there could be some euthanasia cases carried out but which are not declared so we cannot say for certain what the number is,”

Distelman’s comments were based on the research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (March 19, 2015) on the euthanasia practice in Belgium that found:

Will Doctors Be Charged With Murder? We Hope So.

 ‘Appalling’ Euthanasia of Dementia Patient

Dutch Probe

AP
Breitbart London


In a rare series of moves, Dutch authorities are investigating whether doctors may have committed crimes in five euthanasia cases, including the deaths of two women with advanced Alzheimer’s disease.  In one of the Alzheimer’s cases, which prosecutors began probing in September, a physician drugged the patient’s coffee without her knowledge and then had the woman physically restrained while delivering the fatal injection. The ongoing criminal investigation is the first since the Netherlands made it legal for doctors to kill patients at their request in 2002.

Dutch prosecutors announced they were examining four other cases last month, including the death of another Alzheimer’s patient who “lacked the capacity to express her own will,” according to a statement from the prosecutor’s office. A spokesperson said that specific criminal charges, if any, would be determined only after the investigations are finished. Several legal experts said that if doctors were found to have killed patients without their explicit request, they could potentially be charged with murder.

The investigations highlight the difficulties doctors face in handling euthanasia requests for those who later develop dementia. Mental decline can eventually make patients unable to understand the significance of their earlier demand to be killed, and as their brain changes, so can their personality and desires.

“If you made a living will when you were competent and asked for euthanasia, do we attach more weight to a decision you made when you were competent, or to your present situation where you’re no longer yourself and are no longer asking to die?” said Johan Legemaate, a professor of health law at the University of Amsterdam.

The Netherlands is one of five countries that allow doctors to kill patients at their request, and one of two, along with Belgium, that grant the procedure for people with mental illness. For those with late-stage dementia, euthanasia is still possible if the person made a written demand specifying the conditions under which they want to be killed and if other criteria are met, namely if the doctor agrees the patient is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement.

Whether Dutch authorities prosecute the doctors in the two Alzheimer’s cases being investigated will likely set a course for how the increasing numbers of people with dementia who seek euthanasia will be handled.

Why Don't You Do Yourself and the Rest of Us a Favour?

"It's Best if You Cark It"

Kylee Black Does Not Want to Die

A terminally ill person has made a submission on the Death Bill now before the New Zealand Parliament's Select Committee.  Kylee Black is terminally ill.  She is a 31-year-old.  She has Ehlers Danlos Syndrome [EDS], a "genetic connective-tissue disorder that is progressive and incurable".

In fighting against and persisting in living with the disease--when there is no hope of a remedy or cure--Black raises the problem of depression.  Who would not get discouraged and depressed with such a bleak outlook preceded by years of pain? 

But Black does not want to die. And she does not want doctors suggesting death as an option to her, especially on her darkest days.  "I personally have seen over 20 specialists through my local district health board. If I was asked to consider my options as things progress by even a handful of these, I would certainly feel very pressured to consider euthanasia."  [NZ Herald]

When professionals such as doctors suggest to a terminally ill patient that it would be better for the suffering patient to die, we have to ask, Better for whom?

Prothanasia Hysteria And Emotionalism

I’ve Never Seen Unmanageable Suffering

40 Years of Terminal Care 

Dr David Richmond
McBlog

Dr Havill’s opinion piece in last Tuesday’s Herald  is a fine example of the genre of emotionalism he rails against in those who oppose his attempts to convince the public that legalised euthanasia is the holy grail of medicine.

Unfortunately he has not been able to save himself from the mire of emotionalism and exaggeration he criticises so keenly in others. He complains his opponents “typically resort to emotive misleading language”.

Excuse me, but how are we to define statements he makes such as, “People die cruel, agonisingly painful deaths…every day”. “Many suffer horribly for days….weeks… while others linger at death’s door for months….years”. “Terrible tales of family members…dying in conditions that would provoke criminal charges”. “Relatives sitting “at the bedside hoping that death will…quickly end their misery”, as anything but blatant attempts to milk the emotions of his readers?

In more than 40 years of medical practice as a physician, geriatrician and terminal care manager, I cared for many dying people. My testimony is that I have never seen a person dying with unmanageable suffering.

A Universally Available Death Pill Would Be Better

A Medical Professional Warns Against Prothanasia

We argued recently that prothanasia, which creates out of thin air a "human right to die" cannot be restricted to terminally ill elderly people.  A human right is a human right.  If you are a human being, you qualify.  

Therefore it comes as no surprise that a medical specialist, Dr Stephen Child has cut straight to the chase.  He wants the right to die to be removed from the purview of doctors, and left in the hands of the person who is wanting to die (for whatever reason).  He suggests the easiest and simplest way would be to make a "death drug" available in pharmacies nation-wide, and make it available for any person eighteen or over.  It should be as readily available as non-prescription medication.  (For that matter, it would also, inevitably be available in supermarkets and convenience stores such as corner dairies--as many non-prescription medications eventually come to be.)

Child says for those who want to end their lives with dignity, there are simpler, more logical solutions that could be considered.  "Let's make the drug available in pharmacies. And if you're aged over 18 and you sign a form of consent, then people should be able to make that choice and we leave this issue at that," he says.

"But of course that's really difficult to do because some people might go and get the medication because they're depressed."  [NZ Herald]

Child was really wanting to make the case against involving medical professionals in the whole business of prothanasia.

Reject State Sanctioned Killing

The Case Against the Prothanasia Bill

Dr Paul Moon has made the following submission, opposing the Prothanasia Bill currently being considered by the NZ Parliament.


I wish to oppose the state sanctioning of medically-assisted dying – as sought in a Petition of Hon Maryan Street – on the following nine bases:

1. While medically-assisted dying may conform to notions of individual rights, it ignores the often traumatic and potentially long-term effects such deaths have, especially on those children related to the person choosing to end their life. The rights of relatives and friends are ignored in the potential legislation for medically-assisted dying, and are left to the person choosing to end their lives. People
in that position are not likely to be in a state of mind to balance rationally the intricacies of the conflicting rights of their decision;

2. From a community perspective, medically-assisted dying diminishes the absolute value of human life by introducing criteria for the legal termination of life. This is the same argument that New Zealand successfully applies against the death penalty;

3. There can be no guarantees that the psychological counselling received by a person considering a medically-assisted death would be adequate.

Those Hating Wisdom, Love Death

Prothanasia Arguments Cannot Be Limited To One Class of People

A euthanasia debate is now underway in New Zealand.  Parliament is now considering a bill which would make the practice lawful.  

In writing about "euthanasia" we can't help but feel the lily has already been gilded.  The word is derived from Greek.  "Thanatos" means death; "eu" is an adverb meaning "good".  Thus, euthanasia means, literally "good death".  Since we believe that there is nothing good about the deliberate killing of another human being, we propose a new word would serve us much better.  Instead of "euthanasia" we will refer to "prothanasia", which literally means "for death", or "in favour of death".

Philip Matthews summarises what the new Bill intends:

The details may change but the bill presently would allow for a New Zealand citizen or resident over 18, who is suffering from a terminal illness that is expected to end their life within 6 months or has a grievous and untreatable medical condition, to opt for an assisted death. There are safeguards of informed consent and assessment by two doctors.  The pro-euthanasia camps argue that civilised countries like ours at this point in history should allow for death without suffering, a painless option. You hear a lot about the dignity of the dying.  [Stuff]

One of the strong advocates for the prothanasia is Maryanne Street.  She quickly exposes the Achilles heel of the position:

The Mess of Pottage That is Euthanasia

To Die Or Not to Die That is the Question

New Zealand is going through yet another debate on "euthanasia".  Another bill to institutionalise "euthanasia" is before the Parliament.  The usual suspects are hard at work pushing it mightily.  Given that New Zealand is a thoroughly pagan society--one where the predominant religion is atheistic secularism--it would appear to be only a matter of time before the death cult has its way.

Euthanasia is underpinned by a philosophical principle which espouses a particular human right.  It rests upon the doctrine that human beings have a right to determine their own deaths.  If human beings have no such right, then euthanasia is a great evil.  But let us assume for the present that they do have such a right.  Let us assume that the right to choose death is one more faux human right dreamed up by pagan philosophers and professional ethicists. Let us assume further that euthanasia is not just a freedom right (people have a right to kill themselves if they chosoe) but it is also a demand right (society must facilitate, assist and enable people to kill themselves).

At present the issue before the country is whether elderly or terminally ill people have a right to take their own lives (either by their own hand, or assisted by others).  Let us repeat: these people have a right to terminate their own lives, say the protagonists--so much so that if any body or institution interfere with their taking their own life, they are breaching the human rights of that person.  In its strongest demand right sense, people have a right to have their self-death funded and facilitated by the state.

The debate is also being framed at present by an appeal to pity.

Very Encouraging Statement from MP

Euthanasia Debate, New Zealand

Facebook Post by Simeon Brown
MP Pakuranga

Today, Parliament is debating the First Reading of David Seymour’s Euthanasia Bill. I will be voting against this Bill for the reasons I set out below.

I first want to acknowledge that there are well-meaning people on both sides of this issue. However, it is clear to me that no system of euthanasia, no matter how carefully designed, can ensure the protection of the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society. International precedents show that euthanasia regimes result in the involuntary death of innocent lives. I cannot support a law which allows the state to intentionally kill its citizens, particularly where innocent lives will be lost in the process. I do not consider that this is a reasonable or progressive reform in our modern democracy.

I join with the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals in New Zealand – including end-of-life specialists – who oppose euthanasia. I find the New Zealand Medical Association's comments on coercion particularly concerning: "An absolute guarantee that those who choose assisted dying are doing it voluntarily would be extremely difficult to establish in legislation and ensure in practice. Doctors are often not in a position to detect subtle coercion – as is also the case when trying to identify signs of emotional or financial abuse of elders more generally. Coercion also extends to assumptions of being a burden, giving rise to a sense of an “obligation” to die."

In a country with dire statistics relating to elder abuse, youth suicide, and mental health, euthanasia is a major step backward and represents a threat to the vulnerable in our society. Instead of offering a legal avenue for suicide, we need to encourage and strengthen our families and communities to support those who are lonely and suffering in their final stages of life. By doing so, we truly offer compassion (which in the original latin, means supporting those who were experiencing suffering).

I am encouraged by the rapid developments in palliative care, which has only recently been recognised as a medical specialty, and hope that the new Government will continue to support the work of those working in end of life care.

I appreciate this is a very difficult issue and I know many people have many views on this issue and always welcome hearing from anyone who wishes to share their views with me.

Holland's Integration Into the Void

Even the Pagans Are Objecting

Dutch euthanasia getting so out of hand that even assisted-death docs want to hit the brakes

Doug Mainwaring
LifeSiteNews

July 5, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — An advertisement taken out in a major newspaper in the Netherlands by more than 200 Dutch doctors begins, “[Assisted suicide] for someone who cannot confirm he wants to die? No, we will not do that. Our moral reluctance to end the life of a defenseless man is too great. "

The doctors, many of whom currently serve as assisted-suicide providers, are objecting to the unchecked growth of euthanasia in their country, where people who have reduced mental capacity due to dementia are being euthanised.

Current law allows doctors to euthanize without verbal consent if a written declaration of will has been provided in advance. In addition, a doctor has to also first determine that the patient is undergoing unbearable suffering. But with reduced mental capacity, patients are often unable to confirm that their former request to be euthanized — executed perhaps years earlier — is still valid.

Euthanasia and the Love of Death

The Netherlands Recommissions the Ovens of Belsen

In Proverbs 8, Divine Wisdom is personified and calls out to human societies everywhere.

Does not wisdom call?
    Does not understanding raise her voice?
On the heights beside the way,
    at the crossroads she takes her stand;
beside the gates in front of the town,
    at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud:
“To you, O men, I call,
    and my cry is to the children of man.
O simple ones, learn prudence;
    O fools, learn sense.
Hear, for I will speak noble things,
    and from my lips will come what is right,
for my mouth will utter truth;
    wickedness is an abomination to my lips. [Proverbs 8: 1-7]

Wisdom, divine wisdom, is crying out every day to humanity.  But men are weak, stubborn, and foolish.  Men, in vast arrogance, think they can ignore the Living God and forge their own path and make up their own wisdom.  But the cry of Wisdom ends on a final, determinative climax:

For whoever finds me finds life
    and obtains favour from the Lord,
but he who fails to find me injures himself;
    all who hate me love death.

Those who shut their ears to God experience self-inflicted injury; those who hate God's wisdom love death.   At first glance some may advance the idea that "loving death" is a mere figure of speech, possibly an example of hyperbole.  But as humanism gains strength throughout the post-Christian West it is becoming literally true.  There is a growing love of death, as opposed to living and life.

Emma Elliott Freire writes: