It is often claimed, especially by opponents of euthanasia, that one of the reasons why euthanasia is practiced so widely in the Netherlands is that palliative medicine is underdeveloped there. Palliative medicine is medical treatment whose purpose is to cure symptoms where there is no hope of curing the underlying illness. This was developed, especially in England, after the Second World War.
A leading opponent of euthanasia in the Netherlands is Dr. Karel Gunning. He presides a Dutch and an international organization of anti-euthanasia doctors. He is highly critical of the present arrangements, and says, "The whole law is complete nonsense because doctors know in advance that they cannot be punished. If they fill in the forms wrongly (explaining why they put an end to their patients’ life) they will simply be asked to fill them in again."
He is also highly critical of the effect which the practice of euthanasia has had on medical practice in the country. "Giving overdoses of morphine or withdrawing essential food and liquid with the intention of killing patients are now considered normal medical practice in the Netherlands." He learned about the merits of palliative medicine by coming to London to study in a hospice. When he returned to Netherlands, he says, his colleagues simply did not believe that such things were possible. In particular, he insists that pain can be cured in 100% of cases, even if in a small minority of cases extreme measures have to be taken. There are no cases, he argues, where pain is so severe that death is the only solution. By contrast, the Dutch have started to create Hospices only about five years ago.
Dr. Gunning is convinced that the new law will provide no safeguards for those who do not want euthanasia. "Society is now being run by doctors," he says. "They decide who will live and die." Quite apart from the moral questions which this raises, Dr. Gunning thinks that doctors are not even professionally competent in this field. He tells the story of a young man who asked a doctor to kill his dying father because he was due to go on holiday and did not want to have to cancel his trip for the funeral. The doctor agreed and administered a large dose of morphine. But the attempt to kill the man failed because the doctor got the dosage wrong. He later found the old man in fine spirits, feeling better than he had for ages, because the amount of morphine had in fact been sufficient to kill his pain but not to kill him.
Appendix: "A new Ethic for Medicine and Society", Editorial in California Medicine, Volume 113, Number 3, September 1970
The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life, regardless of its age or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each end every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to preserve, protect and repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant but there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually be abandoned. This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in Western society.
There are certain new facts and social realities which are becoming recognized, are widely discussed in Western societies and seem certain to undermine and transform this traditional ethic. They have come into being and into focus as the by-products of unprecedented technological progress and achievement. Of particular importance are, first, the demographic data of human population expansion which tends to proceed, uncontrolled and at a geometric rate of progression; second, an ever growing ecological disparity between the numbers of people and the resources available to support these numbers in the manner to which they are or would like to become accustomed; and third, and perhaps most important, a quite new emphasis on something which is beginning to be called the quality of life, a something which becomes possible for the first time in human history because of scientific and technological achievement. These are now being seen by a growing segment of the public as realities which are within the power of humans to control and there is quite evidently an increasing determination to do this.
What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about, hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved and strengthened and what is not, and this will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on things such as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society.
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and the public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.
It seems safe to predict that the new demographic, ecological and social realities and aspirations are so powerful that the new ethic of relative rather than absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail as man exercises over ever more certain control over his numbers and uses his always comparatively scarce resources to provide the housing, economic support, education and health care in such ways as to achieve his desired quality of life and living. The criteria upon which these relative values are to be based will depend considerably upon whatever concept of the quality of life or living is developed. This may be expected to reflect the extent that quality of life is considered to be a function of personal fulfillment; of individual responsibility for the common welfare, the preservation of the environment, the betterment of the species; and of whether or not, or to what extent, these responsibilities are to be exercised on a compulsory or voluntary basis.
The part which medicine will play as all this develops is not yet entirely clear. That it will be deeply involved is certain. Medicine’s role with respect to changing attitudes toward abortion may well be a prototype of what is to occur. Another precedent may be found in the part physicians have played in evaluating who is and who is not to be given costly long-term renal dialysis. Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician to this decision process has been considerable. One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or society, and further public and professional determinations of when and when not to use scarce resources.
Since the problems which the new demographic, ecological and social realities pose are fundamentally biological and ecological in nature and pertain to the survival and well-being of human beings, the participation of physicians and of the medical profession will be essential in planning and decision-making at many levels. No other discipline has the knowledge of human nature, human behaviour, health and disease, and of what is involved in physical and mental well-being which will be needed. It is not too early for our profession to examine this new ethic, recognize it for what it is and will mean for human society, and prepare to apply it in a rational development for the fulfilment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a biologically oriented world society.