Thursday, December 02, 2004

The Next Step

Hugh Hewitt has been focusing on the Groningen Protocol quite a bit over the last couple of days. This article explains a bit about this "protocol," which is a nice clinical name for a ghastly, dehumanizing set of hospital standard procedures in place in an Amsterdam hospital.

Mark Roberts has been helping lead the charge on this one, and he has a useful list of links.

Chuck Colson closes his October 5 Breakpoint column with this:

Wesley Smith puts it this way: “Why does accepting euthanasia as a remedy for suffering in very limited circumstances inevitably lead to never-ending expansion of the killing license? Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act. If killing is right for, say, the adult cancer patient, why shouldn’t it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?”

There can be little doubt anymore that the “slippery slope” of euthanasia has turned into an avalanche. As I’ve said before, once this kind of attitude starts to spread—as it did in Germany in the 1930s, to the world’s horror, and as it is spreading in America as well as Europe today—no one is truly safe. It can be only a matter of time before lawmakers and doctors determine that none of us needs to have any say in whether we or our loved ones live or die.

He may sound alarmist, but he's simply taking the issue to its logical conclusion.

Another article that Hugh references has the really scary stuff:

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

The decision must be professional, huh? This must be why the 'protocol' has pull with the intellectual crowd; you just can't trust commoners with important decisions like that, it takes professional social engineers to get it right.

More on this one later I'm sure.

Update: Here's a bit of what Hindrocket has to say (he doesn't thing it's alarmist either):
As long as I can remember, euthanasia has been part of the intellectual landscape--advanced and debated as a philosophical theory. But "euthanasia" always had a ring of unreality, like "extraterrestrial life" or "regicide." An intellectual concept with no apparent application in the tangible world.