Who Wants To Die? Belgium and Junk Studies.

Fox news and other outlets are reporting that Belgium, long the recipient of scorn for being one of the few nations where assisted suicide is legal, is killing the dying. A survey (of some sort) was conducted of (a very limited number of) nurses on how often they euthanized (however you wish to define that term, type of drug insignificant) a patient (their health status not included in the article) without the patient's consent (written? verbal? what about the family's or the doctors?).

It's the perfect proof of a slippery slope! Give that "culture of death" an inch and it will take your mama!

From the story at Fox:

In interviews with 248 nurses, a fifth admitted they had taken part in a euthanasia procedure based on the “assumption” that the patient wanted to die. Almost half of the nurses confessed to “terminations without request or consent.”

Sure it sounds terrible and scary. Fifty nurses running around offing patients whenever they feel like it, often doing it for the doctor who couldn't be bothered. And what's a vulnerable patient to do when they can't protect themselves and they don't want to die?

I expect it's all rubbish. Britain and Canada, where the primary stories come from, are in the midst of a harsh and unsavory battle over the legalization of assisted suicide. Any story that starts off using the term euthanasia, even one that is about a country in europe, without first clarifying the terms is coming already from a particular position on the issue. Neither article has a link to the original study, nor the name of the study organization - it could have been conducted by the Catholic Church for all we know.

Two of the story versions (here's a British one) quote Peter Saunders of Care Not Killing, an "anti-euthanasia" organization. In both, nothing is said about how the study was conducted, nor is there a description of what is meant by euthanasia. Were the nurses all clear in their answers and using the same definitions? What kinds of hospitals did the nurses work in? From what regions? How old were they? How long had they been nursing? What is consent? Were they trained in palliative care? Do they think that morphine ends lives?

Unfortunately, these types of unsubstantiated stories still move emotions. Just read the comment sections on any of them.

Rom Houben and the Evolution of Uplift.

Alex Schadenberg of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has a great run-down of the evolution of the uplifting but inaccurate story of Rom Houben, the "locked in" patient "discovered" and now talking about the horror of his 23 years alone.

The story resonated for me because a lot of "pro-life" folks jumped on the story as strange vindication for the death of Terri Schiavo who was removed from artificial nutrition and hydration after a years long court battle and media blitz. See, "pro-lifers" said, maybe the persistent vegetative state diagnosis is wrong sometimes. I never bought the parallel and I still don't.

But the Houben story had emotional legs that it marathon-ed across all sorts of media outlets. Those who oppose aid in dying (strange because the DwD laws, in the US at least, only pertain to patients capable of ingesting the medicine on their own and only those with terminal diagnoses) worked the story into justification for their position.

The Terri Schiavo case - and the Rom Houben case - have zilch to do with aid in dying. US law has long determined that families may choose to remove their brain dead loved ones from artificial life support. Or with an advance directive, patients may do so themselves in advance.

But read Schadenberg's summary. I'm glad he has it up; it speaks to EPCs commitment to using the facts, discerning what's best for patients, and not chasing after ideological and emotional stories for political gain. At least today, with this post.