GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: That euthanasia stuff… does anyone remember what we decided?

sábado, 2 de abril de 2016

BioEdge: That euthanasia stuff… does anyone remember what we decided?

That euthanasia stuff… does anyone remember what we decided?

by Michael Cook | 2 Apr 2016 |

Catherine Fonck (l) and Health Minister Maggie De Block in Parliament

Despite – or perhaps because of – scathing criticism of their 2002 law by foreigners, Belgians approach legalised euthanasia with a certain nonchalance. “We’re in charge. We know what we’re doing. Life’s good. So get … um … lost!” seems to sum up the official approach.

However, a question posed by a member of Parliament, Dr Catherine Fonck, early last month, must have rattled that complacency.

Dr Fonck, a renal physician who was a minister in the government of Elio di Rupo, queried Health Minister Maggie De Block about why the full text of the country’s euthanasia law has never been published.

It turns out that the original text was amended in 2005 with the intention of controlling the lethal drugs used in euthanasia cases better. Both chambers of Parliament agreed that extensive information about the drugs and the pharmacist should be included in the official report submitted by the physician. The amendment received royal assent. It was therefore the law of Kingdom of Belgium.

But it was never published in the official gazette of December 13, 2005 -– so no one knew about it. Corrections were published in the gazette of September 25, 2006, but the amendment did not appear there, either. Dr Fonck raised the unsettling possibility that promulgation of the amendments had been sabotaged by an unknown individual.

“I find this completely surreal,” Fonck told the Minister. “Could you enlighten me on why this surreal situation, namely that legislation passed in both chambers, in committee and in a Plenary session of the House and Senate was - twice - not included in the Moniteur Belge [the official gazette]?”

The terseness of the Minister’s reply suggests that she did not welcome the liberation of this fragment of law from the dungeons of oblivion. Understandable, perhaps, for it is not as though euthanasia is something important, like terrorism legislation, where a mistake means that innocent people die unnecessarily.

But she patiently ate her full meal of humble pie. “Ten years later, no one can explain what happened,” she told Dr Fonck. She agreed to correct the gazette.

Thanks to the bulletin of the European Institute of Bioethics

- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/that-euthanasia-stuff-does-anyone-remember-what-we-decided/11811#sthash.titwTOFy.dpuf

There’s probably no other country in which bioethics plays a greater role in politics than in the United States. Or at least one bioethical issue – abortion. The impending election is looking increasingly like a contest between fiercely pro-abortion Hillary Clinton and muddled anti-abortion Donald Trump.

This week Trump “misspoke” for the umpteenth time, but this time the topic was abortion. At first he declared that a woman who had an abortion should be punished, a position which he changed within the day. Now he says that the doctor should be punished.

The ensuing storm in the media meant that Trump has become the only candidate to unite pro-abortion campaigners and pro-life campaigners. Both are angry: the former because women’s reproductive rights are threatened; the latter because it distorts their message.

Trump has acknowledged that he is a “convert” to the pro-life camp, but as a spokeswoman for the Susan B Anthony List, a pro-life lobby group, said, “The most obvious thing about his comments yesterday is that he has not thought about these issues deeply.”

Better said: abortion is one of the many issues about which Trump has not thought deeply. Unfortunately, my hunch is that this controversy, like past controversies, will do him no harm at all in his race for the nomination. But November may be a different story.