An open letter of the Dutch Physicians' League.

• Author: Hildering, P.C.
• Position: Assisted suicide and abortion

Urk, Thursday, October 14th, 1999

To The Second Chamber of The Parliament [Staten-Generaal] Attention of the Permanent Committee on Justice Mrs. M. Pe, LLM. P.O. Box 20018, 2500 EA, The Hague Ladies and Gentlemen,

A Bill concerning the administrative review of the termination of life upon request and of assisted suicide has been recently introduced in the Parliament.(1) The Dutch Physicians' League is raising serious objections to the contents of this Bill and the amendments to the Penal Code, the Coroner Act, and the General Administration Act, which accompany the Bill. The Bill and the amendments violate the constitutional safeguards protecting human life and dignity.

The Bill exempts physicians from prosecution for acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide and attests to the fact that in the Netherlands there is no longer any question of the morality of euthanasia. Instead, euthanasia tends to be viewed as an accepted medical practice which, admittedly, needs to be supervised, but in consideration [for the inconvenience of being supervised] the physician carrying it out [should be] exempt from prosecution. In other parts of the world (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States of America), both the medical profession and the legislatures have concluded that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide must be rejected on moral grounds (which is also the opinion of the Dutch Physicians' League); and, moreover, that these procedures cannot be effectively regulated or supervised by statutes or otherwise. And yet our government believes that the Bill in question would serve this end.

Exemption from punishment is to be granted under two conditions: (1) [the physician] must comply with the rules of careful conduct, and (2) [the physician] must report [cases of] euthanasia and assisted suicide.

(1) The rules of careful conduct state that the physician must be convinced of [the patient's] intolerable suffering with no prospect of improvement, and of the patient's voluntary, well-considered, and persistent request. No definition of intolerable suffering without prospect of improvement is given. Mention is made of `far-reaching deterioration' and `inability to die in a dignified way.' This leaves ample space for subjective interpretations of all kinds. During the symposium of the Royal Dutch Society of Medicine on the 25th anniversary of the euthanasia debate, some physicians stated that in their opinion the time [to perform euthanasia] comes when [the patient] is no longer able to take care of himself and needs to be assisted by others, at home or in an institution. It was put forward, among other arguments, that palliative care is insufficient and...