The Groningen Protocol – Two Catholics’ Views
Posted By: 'Okie' | 5:49 pm — 12/5/2004 | 
4 Comments See comments below:
Somehow I missed today’s article on the Groningen Protocol in the Los Angeles Times, but a search of their internet site shows that they finally had their first piece in today’s edition. Much better late than never, but the Blogosphere is way ahead of them, and the rest of the MSM as of today. What else is new?
One very interesting conversation is going on between two Catholics at ProfessorBainbridge.com and MirrorOfJustice.com, although my money is on the good professor’s viewpoint. Thanks Hugh Hewitt for the links to this discussion.
Stephen Bainbridge, a corporate law professor at UCLA, discusses the Groningen Protocol from a Catholic’s perspective on his blog at ProfessorBainbridge.com.
Being a mere corporate lawyer and an adult convert doubtless handicaps me, but as far as I can tell Church teaching is pretty clear. Paragraph 2277 of the Catechism states:
Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. (Em his)
Doubtless I’m missing something. Until somebody explains what I’m missing by reference to clear teaching in the Magisterium, however, I will maintain that the analogy to Nazi doctors is entirely apt. ”
Professor Bainbridge is reacting to a post by Michael Perry at Mirror of Justice, part of which states:
Wouldn’t the Doctrine of Double Effect permit parents to authorize the administration of a sedative (e.g., morphine) to their child in order to relieve the child’s unbearable pain–even, if necessary to relieve the pain, to the point where the child’s respiratory system is depressed and the child dies . . . so long as the parents do not intend the death of the child but only the relief of the child’s unbearable pain? Of course, the proportionality test (which is the second part of the DDE) would not be met if the child’s condition were not terminal. But if the child’s condition is terminal–if the child will die within the week–then wouldn’t the proportionality test be met?”
Reacting to Professor Bainbridge in another post two days later, Perry writes:
Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that a law makes it clear that doctors may, if after appropriate deliberation they decide to do so, cooperate with parents in the scenario I suggested in my post. If I’m right about the implications of the the Doctrine of Double Effect, then the parents’ decision is morally permissible–that is, morally permissible according to orthodox Roman Catholic moral theology. (Steve: Nothing in Evangelium Vitae or in the Catechism calls into question the DDE.) And if their decision is morally permissible, then there is no reason doubt that the doctors’ cooperation with the parents is morally permissible too.”
According to the Groningen Protocol, under the guidelines set up by this Dutch policy, parents’ can be considered in regards to whether a child would be allowed to live or die, but they would not have the last word. That would be left up to the professionals, ie. the doctors on the committee, and their judgments would be final. And in this case, it does mean FINAL! What rational they would be using to make these decisions would be up to the state, be it so called “humanitarian”, social considerations or even heavily weighted by financial concerns, as surely the “state” has limited resources that can be used to keep alive those that cannot, or never will, be of “benefit to society”.
But for sake of argument, let’s say that the parents had the last word and that they chose to allow the doctors to “kill” their teminally ill child, would this be “morally permissible”? Unless I am completely off base, none of the established Christian denominations would allow euthanasia of anyone: terminally ill, the insane, desperately suicidal — much less children. Therefore, only a secular society would allow euthanasia to become the established methodology of dealing with these groups — Another in a long list of excellent reasons to maintain the U.S. as a Judeo-Christian society! . . . db
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 5th, 2004 at 5:49 pm and is filed under Culture of Life, Focus On Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Recently Posted:
- Too Late To Apologize — Hard Rockin’ Founding Fathers Edition!
- Global Warming Is Dead, Dead, DEAD — Walter Russell Mead Says So!
- Even Some Die Hard Liberals Get It — Obama Presidency Is A Bust!
- Scott Brown Wins In Massachusetts — Hell Freezes Over, Pigs Be a Flyin’ — Dems On Suicide Watch!
- Dems In Massachusetts — They Can’t Win If They Don’t Cheat!
- More Global Warming Horse Hockey From The Scientific Consensus
- Scott Brown Ahead in Massachusetts Polling!
- America Rising
- Happy New Year?
- More On The Obama/Interpol Sovereignty SANFU
10 December 2004 | Coen de Graaf Said:
Let me first start with some quantitative arguments why Judeo-Christian society is not always better, in fact worse if that same society does not really listen to the bible, and especially Jesus Christ and his teachings about equality and the acquiring of wealth.
Child mortality rates in 2002
Deaths per 1000 children before the age of 5
USA: 8
Netherlands 5
Source: Unicef, 2004
That should show where children are more likey to survive.
“However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.
“Measures that might marginally extend a child’s life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day,” said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. “Everybody knows that it happens, but there’s a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they’re not going to do.”
More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it’s really about management and method of death, Stell said. ” Source:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html
So it happens in the USA, but they just dont tell anyone about it.
“A new report from international agency Oxfam today reveals that 45 million more children will die needlessly by 2015, because rich countries are failing to provide the necessary resources to overcome poverty.” Source: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/mdgs_price061204.htm
The Netherlands are providing the agreed 0.7% of GNP as agreed, the USA are paying less then 0.3% of GNP. Who cares more about the lives of children abroad?
10.7% of U.S. children have no Health insurance(source:CDC), lack of health insurance results in a 25% increased risk of death(source:a.o Linda J. Blumberg and David W. Liska, The Uninsured in the United States: A Status Report (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 1996))
In general, the conclusion is that imho the USA should worry more about their own decisions that let children die, because the data clearly shows that more work can and must be done in that area. The USA spends more money than any other country on health care but it does not show in the numbers, simply because that money benefits the wealthy more.
These comments were however only in part about the topic at hand, child euthanisia. This moral issue, is live always preferable above death is a very personal one. I personally say no, death might be better in some circumstances. If I knew that I only had a month to live at the most, I would be in agonizing pain all the way, anti-pain medication would not help, then I would be happy to take my own live, or begging others to do so. Should you make it possible that people that cannot make that kind of decision on their own be killed under certain circumstances?
I say, hesitantly, yes. There should be very explicit rules, procedures, and checks and balances, and severe punishment if the rules are not followed to the letter. And that precisely is my main objection to the practice of euthanisia today in The Netherlands. It is not policed enough by hospitals and other medical institions, not enough pressure on MD’s to use euthanisia rules instead of terminal sedation(which is the standard practice in countries where euthanisia is forbidden) and not enough education on euthanisia to MD’s so they are not as afraid to be prosecuted for doing the right thing(imho).
To conclude: if you look at the numbers, i would say that the Dutch government cares more about the children than you might think.
10 December 2004 | OkieBoy Said:
The above comment by Mr. de Graff makes the point of the argument against euthanasia for anyone. Who would make up these rules? Who would see that they are enforced? In WWII, it was the Nazis that decided, who would decide today?
Again, in a secular society that has rejected Judeo-Christian principals and ideals, you are left with only the concepts of men to guide you in matters of law and justice. Moral relativism becomes a death spiral of the soul, and obviously, of the body as well! . . . db
11 December 2004 | My Sandmen Said:
The Groningen Corollary
If existence by committee is to be the legacy of Mankind, then the silence of our lambs today may yield the soylents of necessity tomorrow.
12 December 2004 | Earl E. Appleby, Jr. Said:
Coen de Graaf begins with a truth: “Judeo-Christian society is not always better, in fact worse if that same society does not really listen to the bible, and especially Jesus Christ and his teachings” and ends with a lie: “Should you make it possible that people that cannot make that kind of decision on their own be killed under certain circumstances? I say, hesitantly, yes.”
Murder is murder, however, hesitantly endorsed. As such it is condemned by the God of Abraham and His Only Begotten Son, as well as His Holy Word.
A Culture of Death is scarcely a Christian civilization or even a civilization whatever it may profess with its lips.
For more about the infamous Groningen Protocols, visit