The 10 traps in the end-of-life bill
Alliance VITA has deciphered the 10 traps included in the bill which intends to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide, behind the subterfuge of a claimed “assistance in dying”.
1 – The trap behind the words “assistance in dying”
The wording of the bill deliberately avoids using the words euthanasia and assisted suicide. Its author explains that those words have bad connotations, and the promoters of the bill even claim that it is neither euthanasia, nor suicide. Nevertheless, that is the truth. It is important to call a spade a spade. It is a matter of truth, clarity and even democracy. The words “assistance in dying” could quite easily be applied to palliative care, which indeed, is assistance in dying, but without killing. The words used are intended not only to hide the truth, they disguise it as an altruist act in order to embellish it.
2 – The trap of so-called freedom
The bill claims to establish a right, without forcing it on anyone. But what is the sense of a freedom to ask for death when one is alone, destitute, inadequately cared for or without access to care? From the outset of the diagnosis of a life-threatening disease, patients who have not asked for anything in particular find themselves eligible for administered death. A question has to be asked: “Is there still a place for me in society?” The aged, the handicapped, those suffering from chronic diseases are vulnerable; their family and carers also. The incitement to self-exclusion, slides insidiously from a right to a moral duty to die “freely”.
3 – The trap of “threatened life expectancy”
The bill does not require that patients need to be at their end of life: they must be suffering from an “advanced stage disease” with “threatened life expectancy”. However, the interpretation of such wording is highly subjective. When questioned on the meaning of the expression threatened life expectancy, the HAS (High Authority for Health) admits: the moment of death and the outcome of a disease retain their share of uncertainty. Since prediction is unreliable, patients whose disease does not necessarily lead to death may find themselves deprived, through fear or despair, of a period of life whose nature cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.
4 – The trap of “unbearable suffering”
The bill states that the patient must “be subject to psychic or psychological suffering linked to the disease, which is either refractory to treatments, or unbearable according to the person when he/she chooses not to receive or to terminate a treatment”. Behind such words, one has to understand that a patient refusing any treatment or accompaniment and stating that “my psychological suffering is unbearable” will be able to obtain death, even if he/she feels no physical suffering. This criterion, which is as unquestionable as it is unverifiable, opens the door wide for euthanasia and assisted suicide.
5 – The trap of false collegiality
The bill demands that the doctor consulted to validate the euthanasia or suicide must consult with a colleague – who would not even be required to meet the patient! – and another carer, medical auxiliary or assistant carer, who knows the patient. But the first doctor would be under no obligation to abide by those two opinions. He/She would have full power of decision. So much for any so-called collegiality! As for the patient’s family: they will be neither consulted, nor informed! In the name of independence, it is as if they are not concerned. Surely it is contradictory to extol a “patient’s right” which attributes the decision authority to a single doctor?
6 – The trap of an expeditious procedure
The bill intends that the doctor consulted to authorise the euthanasia or suicide must respond within two weeks, after which the patient has two days to reconsider. But these two-time delays may be shortened or even eradicated if the doctor so considers. Under an emergency procedure, a patient could be euthanised very quickly. It is intended that doctors practicing euthanasia should declare themselves to the supervisory commission. The existence of such a list suggests the establishment of expeditive channels and practices, especially as family members will have no right of appeal. Some of them will only discover the death of their loved one after the event.
7 – The trap of a limited conscience clause
The wording of the bill establishes a conscience clause for carers, but all of them would be compelled, on pain of severe sanctions, to inform their patients on the so-called “assistance in dying”, and to refrain from any attempt at dissuasion, and must direct them to a doctor practicing euthanasia. The conscience of chemists is blatantly trampled underfoot: At the very heart of the device for the distribution of lethal products, they will have no legal possibility of refusing to supply. Health or medico-social establishments are compelled to open their premises to euthanasia with no possibility of protecting their inmates. Such brutality for all!
8 – The trap of the censure of opponents
The bill threatens with a year in prison anyone who opposes a euthanasia or assisted suicide (two carefully avoided words), even if remotely via Internet. Associations, next of kin and carers are under scrutiny. In the event of appeals, only those associations dedicated to “people’s rights for access to assistance in dying” will be authorised to make any claim! Clearly these are double standards at work: the incitement to assisted suicide or euthanasia would not be punishable. Information is locked down by the proponents of “assistance in dying, challenging is punishable, opposition is censured… Perhaps there should be a Ministry for Truth?
9 – The trap of illusory supervision
The text of the bill establishes an a posteriori checking system, after the death of the person, when it is too late, and when medical checks are no longer possible. By a clever trick, the person suicided or euthanised would be considered to have died “of natural causes”! Who will dare to challenge the doctor who validates such a death? The example of foreign states is quite eloquent : Professor Theo Boer, an ex-member of the Dutch supervisory commission, has changed his position on the euthanasia law in Holland. He has sounded a warning for the whole of France: once legalised, euthanasia and assisted suicide will be uncontrollable.
10 – The trap of facility
The text of the bill on euthanasia is being debated at the same time as another bill which aims to reinforce access to palliative care. But the necessary support for palliative care must not act as an alibi for abandoning the prohibition against killing. Palliative care and euthanasia are incompatible. Whereas inducing death is both expeditious and economical, palliative care is respectful of the unpredictability of death and requires time and presence. Half of the patients who would need it still have no access to palliative care. Beware of the trap of easy way out! The risk is of pushing the most vulnerable towards administered death through a shortage of appropriate care.
Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux :
