Niederlande Euthanasia Essay

Writing your euthanasia research paper would be more difficult for you than a simple essay. Nevertheless, if you know the structure and know what to do in each part of your research, nothing is impossible!

So, first of all, after choosing your topic (remember, that we’ve decided to choose euthanasia research paper), you have to search for all available information on the Internet and in libraries.

Secondly, you have to state your thesis. This is very important to make it right, so look for some thesis examples on the web.

Your next step is making an outline. Keep in mind that all the points should correlate to your research paper topic.

Introduction – present your thesis here and explain, in brief, what the main goal of your euthanasia research paper is and why your potential readers should be interested in it.

In your body you have to give all the arguments you have to support your thesis. As it is not an essay, the number of arguments should be much bigger than in your essay on unemployment. Finish your body with the strongest argument you have prepared.

Conclusion – the same as usual: restate the thesis statement and give a short summary of your euthanasia research paper.

Your final task is to organize your notes, make corrections where it is needed and so on. After you do it, type the final draft and your euthanasia research paper is done!

Well, as you can see, it is absolutely possible to write an essay or research paper yourself. But we understand that sometimes you simply have no time for it, as you have to do other tasks too. That’s why we can offer you our help!

We are an academic writing company that has already helped a lot of students to succeed in studying. Our professional writers can do any written assignment of any difficulty and in any discipline. Let us help you write your essay or research paper! We guarantee the highest quality of your order for really affordable prices! Submit your application to and be assured that we are the best custom writing service you will find.

Legalization of Euthanasia: Advantages and Disadvantages

The intention to deliberately accelerate the death of an incurable patient, even to stop his suffering, has never been unambiguous. The English philosopher Francis Bacon introduced the term euthanasia to denote light painless death, that is, calm and light death, without torment and suffering. Although the very idea of ​​euthanasia originated a long time ago, from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, traditional medical ethics includes a ban: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death.” Euthanasia is called any action aimed at putting an end to the life of a person, in pursuit of his/her will, and an uninterested person must do this.

It is worthy to note that the 39th World Medical Assembly adopted the Declaration on euthanasia, which states the following “Euthanasia, as an act of intentional deprivation of life of the patient at his/her request or the request of his/her relatives, is inadmissible, including the form of passive euthanasia. The doctor is obligated to ease the suffering of the dying by all available and legal methods.”

More and more people think that euthanasia is much more humane in some cases than life (Piccirilli Dorsey, Inc.). Nevertheless, it is necessary to find out whether people have the right to decide if someone needs to die or to live further. This question is of interest to both ordinary people and doctors. What is more, it is unlikely that humanity will come to a single denominator in this matter. That is why there are arguments for and against euthanasia.

To start with, the specific reasons for the legalization of euthanasia are as follows. Euthanasia makes it possible to fully exercise the human right to dispose of their lives, including making decisions on the termination of their own lives. Secondly, a person is recognized as the highest value, and consequently, her/his real well-being, the needs and the right to self-determination, the right to freedom, the right to respect for dignity, the right to dignity must be guaranteed and fully guaranteed (Strinic, Visnja). Thirdly, euthanasia provides the implementation of one of the fundamental principles of law, the principle of humanism. Euthanasia is humane because it stops the suffering and torment of an incurably sick person. The state and society must recognize this right not for everyone, but for the sake of the small group of people who need it (Strinic, Visnja). It is also worth noting the point of view of the European Court of Human Rights, which maintains a neutral position on this issue, recognizing the right of the States Parties to autonomy in settlement of euthanasia (“The Right To Assisted Suicide In The Case Law Of The European Court Of Human Rights.”). Analyzing their decisions about euthanasia, it can be seen that, in most cases, the court did not take into account the material aspect of the cases, but resolved them on the basis of violations of the procedural form.

However, it should be recalled that, in fact, in all civilized countries, a murder of compassion persists in practice regardless of whether it is permitted by law or not. The literature indicates that 40% of all deaths of sick people occur as a result of medical decisions made by the physicians about the cessation of life either by refusing treatment or by drugs that accelerate its onset. Consequently, in countries where euthanasia is prohibited, where there is no legal protection against the misuse of euthanasia, the situation is worse. The legalization of euthanasia must go through some scientific, legislative filters that will establish rules, specific criteria and cases when such a right can be realized. The decriminalization of euthanasia is indicated by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in the document “Questions and Answers on Euthanasia” of 10.09.2003, will control this process and restrict it to a clear framework of the law. Only controlled procedures and clear rules for the use of euthanasia will end the arbitrary system existing in many European countries (Assistance To Patients At End Of Life).

Jonathan Van Maren cites twenty arguments against euthanasia (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). First of all, it is believed that suicide with assistance or euthanasia is death with dignity because it occurs quickly. It turns out that those who do not die quickly die without dignity. Secondly, suicide with the help destroys the appointment of medical institutions: to treat patients, save lives and reduce pain. Adding the killing of patients to the list of “medical services” will become an encroachment on the very essence of medicine. Thirdly, suicide for the help makes people who want to use this “service”, second-class citizens (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). If a person who does not have depression can not claim to be in a position to die. As for a person with depression, the state actually confirms that life with depression is less valuable. Fourthly, euthanasia requires that the state and medical institutions determine whether a person should live. As a result, people with disabilities become second-class people, because their lives are less valuable than people without disabilities. Parents of disabled children in Belgium are advised to expose children to euthanasia. Euthanasia, translated from the Greek as good death is placed in dependence on the eugenics, in Greek, which means good birth (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Just as abortion justifies the killing of unborn children with Down syndrome and other abnormalities, euthanasia is used to kill already-born people, but less sophisticated than others. Fifthly, suicide with assistance erases borders. If someone has a mental illness and has the right to use a suicide hotline, which is funded by the government, there is a stumbling block what doctors should do. The question is to deny a man from death or not. Then, it ups in the mind whether such pressure will be a violation of the new rights of citizens in a state where the government permits murder or not. After all, once they decided that the woman had the right to abort, people immediately began to blame those who tried to discourage women from abortion, in violation of their rights. What is more, suicide for assisting makes suicidal people much more vulnerable, since, having legalized the possibility for a person to kill him-/herself, the government has confirmed that these people should not live. Seventhly, suicide for assistance gives rise to a new definition of the term cure, which now affects deadly poison, issued by a physician with a clear intention to kill a person (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Eightly, suicide for assistance creates a new, fictitious right, the right to death. It undermines the right to life, which can not be abandoned, even voluntarily. The right to death is a legal absurdity. Providing the state and courts with the right to legalize murder is an extremely dangerous step that has far-reaching consequences. In the Netherlands, many people are victims of forced euthanasia (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”).

Next to the facts, to provide medical professionals with the legal right to kill, even in limited circumstances, are unreasonable and dangerous. Using this right, people can hide medical negligence or ill treatment. Such precedents have already been in European countries, where euthanasia is legalized. The eleventh against proclaims that children can push their parents so that they take advantage of the new service. Such cases were recorded in the United States and Europe. When people live a long time and spend their savings on themselves, it is easy to predict the reaction of a selfish child who sees her/his dying heritage. The twelfth fact explains that those who advocate the legalization of euthanasia ignore the fact that people may be under pressure and use this service for various reasons. For example, the legalization of euthanasia for children in Belgium ignores the fact that children can be subjected to pressure in opposition to their interests (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). As a thirteenth against, there is a point that there is little discussion about how the final stage of euthanasia should be carried out. So-called precautionary measures have been illusory or ineffective in all jurisdictions where euthanasia is legalized. It is known that many feel great relief if their suicide attempt was unsuccessful, but anyone can not question the victims of euthanasia or regret their decision.

Moreover, suicide for assistance is based on a secular principle. After death, nothing is possible; suicide does not affect anything. It is very arrogant. If, as Christians believe and practically all of Western civilization up until recently), life after death exists, suicide is an act with enormous moral consequences. Also, suicide for assistance as a moral issue has never been discussed, even on the periphery. Those who seek to legalize euthanasia seem to have simply taken the Axiom’s view that suicide for assistance is a right without making any attempt to formulate a clear philosophy to illustrate why this is so. The sixteenth against proclaims that abuse of euthanasia occurs wherever it is legal. For example, judges in the Netherlands have allowed some families to subject their elderly parents with dementia to euthanasia, despite the fact that the parents themselves have never asked for euthanasia and there was no weighty evidence that they wanted to die. The president of the Exit branch in German-speaking Switzerland Saskia Fry said that “opponents of organized suicide believe that older people are not able to make decisions” (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Nevertheless, the elderly person reflects and decides independently. What is more, their close people and relatives are trying to resist the choice of a person to commit suicide. It is worthy to note that older people are much better informed, more autonomous and self-confident than before and called for not underestimating the experience and qualifications of those who help to get out of life. Also, in countries, where legalization of euthanasia exists, the prices for this service increase. In Belgium and the Netherlands every year, a huge number of people die as a result of euthanasia.

The eighteenth against implies specialists in ethics insist that forced euthanasia or rather a murder for children should be legalized. In the Netherlands, this has already happened (Jotkowitz, A B). What is more, suicide for help and euthanasia devalue human life. After all, medical institutions are killing a suffering person as if a domestic animal was slaughtering.
The last but not the least is where the suicide with assistance is legalized, activists of euthanasia push this service into all possible spheres. Their words about some kind of precautionary measures and limited circumstances are an outright lie. The ultimate goal is to provide euthanasia upon the request and without any kind of apology.

It can be said that the only minus of euthanasia is its gloomy coloring in society. It always sprawls on religious dogmas, which can not but offend the feelings of unbelievers who are hungry for it day by day. Also, people are gently saying strange and useless analogies to the past with the naturalness of death and anguish, utterances like one must live (Piccirilli Dorsey, Inc.). The public was obsessed with the cult of life as an absolute good and lost any culture of death. Suicide is not savagery. Wildness is when a man of the 21st century dies as the last beast because of someone’s prejudices. This is nothing but a public opinion that still can not support euthanasia with even half of its votes. To sum up everything that was mentioned above, one should admit that the problem of euthanasia requires criminal legal regulation. As the solution to this, the fate of many hopelessly sick people, who in recent years have been in hospitals, whose physical condition is diagnosed as an intermediate one, between life and death, and the mental one, is helplessness, a state of deep despair.

Works Cited

Assistance To Patients At End Of Life. Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée Parlementaire, 2005. Retrieved 29 August 2017, from
“Euthanasia Fact Sheet | The World Federation Of Right To Die Societies.” Worldrtd.Net, 2017. Retrieved 29 August, 2017, from
Jotkowitz, A B. “The Groningen Protocol: Another Perspective.” Journal Of Medical Ethics, vol 32, no. 3, 2006, pp. 157-158. BMJ. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
Strinic, Visnja. “Arguments In Support And Against Euthanasia.” British Journal Of Medicine And Medical Research, vol 9, no. 7, 2015, pp. 1-12. Sciencedomain International. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
The Hippocratic Oath. [New Haven, Conn.], Journal Of The History Of Medicine And Allied Sciences, Inc., 1996,. Retrieved 29 August 2017
“The Right To Assisted Suicide In The Case Law Of The European Court Of Human Rights..” European Center For Law And Justice, 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017, from
“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed.” Lifesitenews, 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017, from
World Medical Association. HANDBOOK OF DECLARATIONS. Ferney-Voltaire, France: The Association, 1992; Document Number 17.P, 1 p.4.

Note: This fact sheet is based upon developments in the Netherlands through 1994. It includes data from the “Remmelink Report.”
For information and events, including the current law regarding Dutch euthanasia and assisted suicide since 1994, see Holland.

Right-to-die advocates often point to Holland as the model for how well physician-assisted, voluntary euthanasia for terminally-ill, competent patients can work without abuse. But the facts indicate otherwise.


Dutch Penal Code Articles 293 and 294 make both euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal, even today. However, as the result of various court cases, doctors who directly kill patients or help patients kill themselves will not be prosecuted as long as they follow certain guidelines. In addition to the current requirements that physicians report every euthanasia/assisted-suicide death to the local prosecutor and that the patient’s death request must be enduring (carefully considered and requested on more than one occasion), the Rotterdam court in 1981 established the following guidelines:

  1. The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.
  2. The patient must be conscious.
  3. The death request must be voluntary.
  4. The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.
  5. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem.
  6. The patient’s death cannot inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
  7. There must be more than one person involved in the euthanasia decision.
  8. Only a doctor can euthanize a patient.
  9. Great care must be taken in actually making the death decision. (1)

Since 1981, these guidelines have been interpreted by the Dutch courts and Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) in ever-broadening terms. One example is the interpretation of the “unbearable pain” requirement reflected in the Hague Court of Appeal’s 1986 decision. The court ruled that the pain guideline was not limited to physical pain, and that “psychic suffering” or “the potential disfigurement of personality” could also be grounds for euthanasia. (2)

The main argument in favor of euthanasia in Holland has always been the need for more patient autonomy — that patients have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. Yet, over the past 20 years, Dutch euthanasia practice has ultimately given doctors, not patients, more and more power. The question of whether a patient should live or die is often decided exclusively by a doctor or a team of physicians.(3)

The Dutch define “euthanasia” in a very limited way: “Euthanasia is understood [as] an action which aims at taking the life of anotherat the latter’s expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result.” (4) (Emphasis added.) This definition applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes what the rest of the world refers to as non-voluntary or involuntaryeuthanasia, the killing of a patient without the patient’s knowledge or consent. The Dutch call this “life-terminating treatment.”

Some physicians use this distinction between “euthanasia” and “life-terminating treatment” to avoid having a patient’s death classified as “euthanasia,” thus freeing doctors from following the established euthanasia guidelines and reporting the death to local authorities. One such example was discussed during the December 1990 Institute for Bioethics conference in Maastricht, Holland. A physician from The Netherlands Cancer Institute told of approximately 30 cases a year where doctors ended patients’ lives after the patients intentionally had been put into a coma by means of a morphine injection. The Cancer Institute physician then stated that these deaths were not considered “euthanasia” because they were not voluntary, and that to have discussed the plan to end these patients’ lives with the patients would have been “rude” since they all knew they had incurable conditions. (5)

For the sake of clarity in this fact sheet, the direct and intentional termination of a patient’s life, performed without the patient’s consent, will be termed “involuntary euthanasia.”


The Remmelink Report— On September 10, 1991, the results of the first, official government study of the practice of Dutch euthanasia were released. The two volume report (6)–popularly referred to as the Remmelink Report (after Professor J. Remmelink, M.J., attorney general of the High Council of the Netherlands, who headed the study committee)–documents the prevalence ofinvoluntary euthanasia in Holland, as well as the fact that, to a large degree, doctors have taken over end-of-life decision making regarding euthanasia. The data indicate that, despite long-standing, court-approved euthanasia guidelines developed to protect patients, abuse has become an accepted norm. According to the Remmelink Report, in 1990:

  • 2,300 people died as the result of doctors killing them upon request (active, voluntary euthanasia).(7)
  • 400 people died as a result of doctors providing them with the means to kill themselves (physician-assisted suicide).(8)
  • 1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent.(9)
    • 14% of these patients were fully competent. (10)
    • 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. (11)
    • In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible. (12)
  • In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient’s death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s consent.(14)
  • According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections–a figure which accounts for 9.1% of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths.
  • The Remmelink Report figures cited here do not include thousands of other cases, also reported in the study, in which life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn without the patient’s consent and with the intention of causing the patient’s death. (15) Nor do the figures include cases of involuntary euthanasia performed on disabled newborns, children with life-threatening conditions, or psychiatric patients. (16)
  • The most frequently cited reasons given for ending the lives of patients without their knowledge or consent were: “low quality of life,” “no prospect for improvement,” and “the family couldn’t take it anymore.”(17)
  • In 45% of cases involving hospitalized patients who were involuntarily euthanized, the patients’ families had no knowledge that their loved ones’ lives were deliberately terminated by doctors. (18)
  • According to the 1990 census, the population of Holland is approximately 15 million. That is only half the population of California. To get some idea of how the Remmelink Report statistics would apply to the U.S., those figures would have to be multiplied 16.6 times (based on the 1990 U.S. census population of approximately 250 million).

Falsified Death Certificates —In the overwhelming majority of Dutch euthanasia cases, doctors–in order to avoid additional paperwork and scrutiny from local authorities–deliberately falsify patients’ death certificates, stating that the deaths occurred from natural causes. (19) In reference to Dutch euthanasia guidelines and the requirement that physicians report all euthanasia and assisted-suicide deaths to local prosecutors, a government health inspector recently told the New York Times: “In the end the system depends on the integrity of the physician, of what and how he reports. If the family doctor does not report a case of voluntary euthanasia or an assisted suicide, there is nothing to control.” (20)

Inadequate Pain Control and Comfort Care — In 1988, the British Medical Association released the findings of a study on Dutch euthanasia conducted at the request of British right-to-die advocates. The study found that, in spite of the fact that medical care is provided to everyone in Holland, palliative care (comfort care) programs, with adequate pain control techniques and knowledge, were poorly developed. (21) Where euthanasia is an accepted medical solution to patients’ pain and suffering, there is little incentive to develop programs which provide modern, available, and effective pain control for patients. As of mid-1990, only two hospice programs were in operation in all of Holland, and the services they provided were very limited. (22)

Broadening Interpretations of Euthanasia Guidelines

  • In July 1992, the Dutch Pediatric Association announced that it was issuing formal guidelines for killing severely handicapped newborns. Dr. Zier Versluys, chairman of the association’s Working Group on Neonatal Ethics, said that “Both for the parents and the children, an early death is better than life.” Dr. Versluys also indicated that euthanasia is an integral part of good medical practice in relation to newborn babies. (23) Doctors would judge if a baby’s “quality of life” is such that the baby should be killed.
  • A 2/15/93 statement released by the Dutch Justice Ministry proposed extending the court-approved, euthanasia guidelines to formally include “active medical intervention to cut short life without an express request.” (Emphasis added.) Liesbeth Rensman, a spokesperson for the Ministry, said that this would be the first step toward the official sanctioning of euthanasia for those who cannot ask for it, particularly psychiatric patients and handicapped newborns.(24)
  • A 4/21/93 landmark Dutch court decision affirmed euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. The court found that psychiatrist Dr. Boudewijn Chabot was medically justified and followed established euthanasia guidelines in helping his physically healthy, but depressed, patient commit suicide. The patient, 50-year-old Hilly Bosscher, said she wanted to die after the deaths of her two children and the subsequent breakup of her marriage.(25)

Euthanasia “Fallout” — The effects of euthanasia policy and practice have been felt in all segments of Dutch society:

  • Some Dutch doctors provide “self-help programs” for adolescents to end their lives. (26)
  • General practitioners wishing to admit elderly patients to hospitals have sometimes been advised to give the patients lethal injections instead. (27)
  • Cost containment is one of the main aims of Dutch health care policy. (28)
  • Euthanasia training has been part of both medical and nursing school curricula. (29)
  • Euthanasia has been administered to people with diabetes, rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, bronchitis, and accident victims. (30)
  • In 1990, the Dutch Patients’ Association, a disability rights organization, developed wallet-size cards which state that if the signer is admitted to a hospital “no treatment be administered with the intention to terminate life.” Many in Holland see the card as a necessity to help prevent involuntary euthanasia being performed on those who do not want their lives ended, especially those whose lives are considered low in quality. (31)
  • In 1993, the Dutch senior citizens’ group, the Protestant Christian Elderly Society, surveyed 2,066 seniors on general health care issues. The Survey did not address the euthanasia issue in any way, yet ten percent of the elderly respondents clearly indicated that, because of the Dutch euthanasia policy, they are afraid that their lives could be terminated without their request. According to the Elderly Society director, Hans Homans. “They are afraid that at a certain moment, on the basis of age, a treatment will be considered no longer economically viable, and an early end to their lives will be made.” (32)

The Irony of History — During World War ll, Holland was the only occupied country whose doctors refused to participate in the German euthanasia program. Dutch physicians openly defied an order to treat only those patients who had a good chance of full recovery. They recognized that to comply with the order would have been the first step away from their duty to care for all patients. The German officer who gave that order was later executed for war crimes. Remarkably, during the entire German occupation of Holland, Dutch doctors never recommended nor participated in one euthanasia death. (33) Commenting on this fact in his essay “The Humane Holocaust,” highly respected British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote that it took only a few decades “to transform a war crime into an act of compassion.” (34)

Implications of the Dutch Euthanasia Experience

  • Right-to-die advocates often argue that euthanasia and assisted suicide are “choice issues.” The Dutch experience clearly indicates that, where voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are accepted practice, a significant number of patients end up having no choice at all.
  • Euthanasia does not remain a “right” only for the terminally-ill, competent adult who requests it, no matter how many safeguards are established. As a “right,” it inevitably is applied to those who are chronically ill, disabled, elderly, mentally ill, mentally retarded, and depressed– the rationale being that such individuals should have the same “right” to end their suffering as anyone else, even if they do not or cannot voluntarily request death.
  • Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients.
  • In actual practice, euthanasia only gives doctors greater power and a license to kill.
  • Once the power to kill is bestowed on physicians, the inherent nature of the doctor/patient relationship is adversely affected. A patient can no longer be sure what role the doctor will play–healer or killer.
  • Unlike Holland, where medical care is automatically provided for everyone, in the U.S. millions of people cannot afford medical treatment. If euthanasia and assisted-suicide were to become accepted in the U.S., death would be the only “medical option” many could afford.
  • Even with health care reform in the U.S., many people would still not have long-standing relationships with their doctors. Large numbers of Americans would belong to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and managed care programs, and they often would not even know the physicians who end up treating them. Given those circumstances, doctors would be ill-equipped to recognize if a patient’s euthanasia request was the result of depression or the sometimes subtle pressures placed on the patient to “get out of the way.” Also, given the current push for health care cost containment in the U.S., medical groups and facilities many be tempted to view patients in terms of their treatment costs instead of their innate value as human beings. For some, the “bottom line” would be, “Dead patients cost less than live ones.”
  • Giving doctors the legal power to kill their patients is dangerous public policy.


1. Carlos Gomez, Regulating Death (New York: Free Press, 1991), p.32. Hereafter cited as Regulating Death.
2. Ibid., p.39.
3. H. Jochemsen, trans., “Report of the Royal Dutch Society of Medicine on ‘Life-Terminating Actions with Incompetent Patients, Part 1: Severely Handicapped Newborns.'” Issues in Law & Medicine, vol. 7, no.3 (1991), p. 366.
4. From KNMG Euthanasia Guidelines as quoted in Regulating Death, p. 40.
5. Alexander Morgan Capron, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands–American Observations,” Hastings Center Report (March, April 1992), p. 31.
6. Medical Decisions About the End of Life, I. Report of the Committee to Study the Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia. II. The Study for the Committee on Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia (2 vols.), The Hague, September 19, 1991. Hereafter cited asReport I and Report II, respectively.
7. Report I, p. 13.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.,p. 15.
10. Report II, p.49, table 6.4.
11. Ibid., p.50, table 6.6.
12. Ibid., table 6.5.
13. Ibid., p. 58, table 7.2.
14. Ibid., p. 72.
15. Ibid.
16. Report I, pp. 17-18.
17. Report II, p. 52, table 6.7.
18. Ibid., table 6.8.
19. I.J. Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands,” The Law Quarterly Review (January 1992), pp. 67-68.
20. Marlise Simons, “Dutch Move to Enact Law Making Euthanasia Easier,” New York Times, 2/9/93, p.A1.
21. Euthanasia: Report of the Working Party to Review the British Medical Association’s Guidance on Euthanasia, British Medical Association, May 5, 1988, p. 49, no. 195.
22. Rita L. Marker, Deadly Compassion -The Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth About Euthanasia (New York; William Morrow and Company, 1993), p. 157. Hereafter cited as Deadly Compassion.
23. Abner Katzman, “Dutch debate mercy killing of babies,” Contra Costa Times, 7/30/92, p. 3B.
24. “Critics fear euthanasia soon needn’t be requested,” Vancouver Sun, 2/17/93, p. Al0. Also, “Dutch may broaden rules to permit involuntary euthanasia,” Contra Costa Times, 2/17/93, p. 4B.
25. New York Times, 4/5/93. p.A3, and Washington Times, 4/22/93, p.A2.
26. “It’s Almost Over — More Letters on Debbie,” Letter to the editor by G.B. Humphrey, M.D., Ph.D., University Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 260, no. 6 (8/12/88), p. 788.
27.”Involuntary Euthanasia in Holland,” Wall Street Journal, 9/29/87, p.3.
28. “Restructuring Health Care”, The Lancet (1/28/89), p.209.
29.”The Member’s Aid Service of the Dutch Association for Voluntary Euthanasia,” Euthanasia Review, vol. 1, no. 3 (Fall 1986), p.153.
30. “Suicide on Prescription,” Sunday Observer (London, England), 4/30/89, p. 22.
31. Deadly Compassion, p. 156.
32. “Elderly Dutch afraid of euthanasia policy,” Canberra Times (Australia), 6/11/93.
33. Leo Alexander, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol.241 (July 14, 1949), p.45.
34. Nancy Gibbs, “Love and Let Die,” Time Magazine (March 19, 1990), p.67.


0 thoughts on “Niederlande Euthanasia Essay”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *