By George Neumayr on 12.3.04 @ 12:07AM
NPR gives respectful hearing to Dutch baby euthanizers.
What is the difference between aborting a baby and euthanizing
it? Nothing except the timing of the killing. In the Netherlands, a
country that never hesitates to unfold the logic of liberalism to
its farthest points, doctors have devised a program to euthanize
babies deemed defective. They euthanized four babies last year,
according to press reports earlier in the week. Now they are
calling upon the Dutch government to pursue a more ambitious
program that would let doctors euthanize undesirables with "no free
will," meaning minors.
C.S. Lewis wrote that evil is done "in clean, carpeted, warmed
and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut
fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their
voices." Lewis could have added that they don't even need to raise
their voices when they go on public radio to explain their evil. On
Wednesday, National Public Radio politely interviewed one of the
Dutch doctors overseeing the euthanasia-for-children program,
Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the Pediatric Clinic of the
University Hospital at Groningen. This white-coated doctor with
neatly trimmed fingernails didn't need to raise his voice when
asked by NPR quite casually, "How was it decided that they should
die?" The children had medical conditions like "spina bifida,"
responded Verhagen. The babies were born "with incurable
conditions," so "we felt that in these children the most humane
course of action would be to allow the child to die, and even
actively assist them in their death."
Assist them in their death. Had the toddlers scrawled
out a consent form? No, they lack "free will," so pediatricians
made the decision for them. Asked if what his hospital had done was
legal, Verhagen blithely said, "No, it's not legal," but implied
the Dutch government would tidy up that decision later. "It's a
very delicate and very important decision that one needs to make,"
he said. "And if such a decision is made, we prefer to have it
tested or assessed by a committee of experts, just to make sure
that we have taken into account all the requirements and that we
are really doing something that is correct."
Would parents be able to veto the decision on which children get
to live or die according to the committee? Apparently not. When
Verhagen was asked, "Is it just up to the parents?" he said, "No."
But he quickly caught himself and magnanimously allowed that
parents are "always very much involved." Ultimately, however, who
lives or dies is the culture's decision, he said. "Let's see how
society thinks of it," he offered. "What we would like to happen
here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on such decisions
because they need to be extremely secure. And instead of taking
these decisions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the
spotlight…The culture in Holland is a culture where
euthanasia for adults has been legalized in 2002 by the
Parliament."
Verhagen concluded on the thought that "the best way to protect
life is to sometimes assist a little bit in death." This
contradicted what he had said earlier when he stressed that "we are
actually talking about children that are already in a dying
process." No, they were not dying. If they were dying, they would
have died without euthanasia. It is precisely because they were not
dying that the Dutch doctors euthanized them.
Euthanasia isn't letting a patient die but killing a patient who
isn't dying. It is an act of annoyance at a patient who isn't dying
on the timetable those who want the patient to die would prefer. In
the Terri Schiavo case, for example, her impatient husband demanded
that she be deprived of food and water because she wasn't dying
with sufficient speed. "Has she died yet?" a nurse heard him say.
"When is that bitch going to die?" Euthanasia, it was said, would
allow Schiavo to "die in peace." Die in peace? No, it would
guarantee that she die violently. Starvation is not a peaceful
act.
In clean, well-lighted hospitals, Verhagen and doctors like him
are committing barbaric acts no different from pagans of old
leaving inconvenient children on hilltops. Whenever a doctor uses
the word "humane," it is clear that he has already performed the
inhuman.