Ten Years of Euthanasia in Belgium Has Made Death the Norm, Living the Exception

by Margaret Somerville | Brussels, Belgium | LifeNews.com | 11/8/13

Recently I received an invitation to fly to Calgary in mid-November to attend the North American première of a film called End Credits at the Marda Loop Justice Film Festival. I was asked to lead a post-screening conversation with the audience and was given access to a copy of the film with English subtitles, which I viewed once. My access has since been blocked and my invitation to attend the festival withdrawn. The scenes from the film, which I describe below, are accurate to the best of my recollection.

“End Credits” is directed by Alexander Decommere and written by Marc Cosyns. It’s a documentary on the practice of euthanasia in Belgium 10 years after it was legalized in 2002. It follows the dying and death of two people, whom the film makers describe as follows: “Adelin, 83, and Eva, 34, two very different people, who are at the dawn of the end of their lives, ask for help with and care for a decent passing away.”

The most striking commonality shared by the old man, Adelin, and the young woman, Eva, is that they are profoundly lonely.

We first meet Adelin in the nursing home where he lives. He is physically fragile and cognitively impaired. At one point, he describes his life as a “dead life” — a powerful phrase that must be heard and which should raise questions of how to improve his situation. It brings to mind lung specialist, Dr Donald Boudreau’s words in speaking about euthanasia: “These euthanologists — if they have their way — will create a moral ecosystem where we will all be traversing through a sort of ‘living death’. Life is the qualifier. Death is the unshakable and primary reality.”

At a certain point, death becomes the norm or basic presumption, living the exception.

Adelin has given his consent to euthanasia in an advance directive executed when he was competent. His physician is trying to determine whether Adelin still wants to go ahead with the procedure. Adelin’s nephew, a middle-aged man, is sitting beside his bed. He urges the physician to administer a lethal injection, because, he says, his uncle is no longer mentally competent, so can’t validly change his mind about euthanasia. The physician continues to try to clarify with the old man whether he wants euthanasia.

Suddenly, Adelin has a burst of energy and seeming lucidity, and shouts, “You want to kill me,” and is clearly horrified by the thought. He is not euthanized and some time later dies a natural death.

Eva is a young Belgian woman, who suffers from mental illness (probably severe depression), who wants euthanasia and, subsequently, to donate her organs. Medical journal articles report organs being taken from euthanized people in Belgium for transplant. In at least one of these cases, a woman donor was mentally ill, but not physically ill.

However, Eva is refused permission to donate by the relevant authority, but she still chooses to go ahead with euthanasia.

We see shots of Eva with her beautiful dog and learn that her brother is in the house, but not with her when she dies, which says so much. Eva says to the physician, “Let’s get on with this.” Wearing sweat pants and a jersey, she lies down on her living room couch and rolls up her sleeve, as though she is going to have her blood pressure taken.

Watching the physician euthanizing her is a chilling experience: The lack of any human warmth. The lack of any sense of the momentousness of what is being done — one human being, and a physician at that, intentionally killing another human being who is his patient. The mundaneness of it all, which is reinforced by the scenes of the physician sitting at Eva’s kitchen table, after he has killed her, routinely filling out the necessary reporting forms.

I was puzzled by what stance on euthanasia the film makers were taking, but my overall impression was it was probably one of neutrality and, I thought, the film might function as a very powerful cri de coeur [heartfelt appeal] against euthanasia.

So I tried, although unsuccessfully as the film makers ignored my emails, to get permission to show the film to others, in particular, the students in my Medical Law class. I recommended to the Quebec National Assembly committee holding hearings on legalizing euthanasia in Quebec that they try to see the film to understand why they should reject euthanasia and Bill 52.

To my absolute astonishment and distress, I subsequently learned from Belgian colleagues that the film is intended to promote euthanasia and was funded by “Recht op Waardig Sterven,” a pro-euthanasia movement comparable to “The right to die with dignity” movements in Canada and that its writer, Dr. Marc Cosyns, is a strong supporter and practitioner of euthanasia in Belgium. How could I have been so confused?

The explanation is the different ways in which pro- and anti-euthanasia adherents would view the two deaths featured in this film.

We see Adelin gradually deteriorating and dying over a period of time. This is difficult to watch, but he is empathetically and compassionately attended by those caring for him, until he dies naturally. They manifest the virtue of patience in their “deathwatch” of Adelin. We all want his dying to be over, but that is very different from making it be over with a lethal injection. I see his human dignity as being respected and his death as a “good death.” He, himself, and not someone else, completes his life cycle and the mystery of life and death is not violated.

Pro-euthanasia advocates would regard Adelin’s dying trajectory as an unacceptable loss of autonomy and control on his part. They would see him as having lost his dignity and his state as making him less of a person or even a non-person — an incomplete, diminished, or even faulty, decaying, tarnished human being — who should be put out of his undignified state through euthanasia.

I saw the physician’s relationship with Eva as cold, clinical and overly rational (which can be a characteristic of a failure of good ethical judgment), and her death as horrifying and unethical. Pro-euthanasia advocates would see it as respecting her right to autonomy and, thus, her dignity, and putting her out of her mental misery.

“End Credits” provides an opportunity to understand some of the ways in which people who are pro-euthanasia and those who are anti-euthanasia radically differ in how they view both dying and death, and what euthanasia involves. And those differences reflect profound differences in what we believe it means to be human and what respect for both individual human life and upholding the value of human life, in general, in our society, requires that we not do.

LifeNews Note:  Margaret Somerville is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law and director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law and is a leader in the discussion of ethical questions in medicine. This originally appeared at mercatornet.com.


The video of this young woman lying down, rolling up her sleeve, while the Eugenist gets his syringe full of death ready is the most horrific evil visual I’ve ever seen other than the disposing of babies from abortions which I watched once and never again. One doesn’t have to see evil being performed in order to believe it exists. I honestly wish I hadn’t watched it – think carefully before you do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Ten Years of Euthanasia in Belgium Has Made Death the Norm, Living the Exception

  1. Elke says:

    Personally I feel very contrary to the author of above article.
    1. I do not agree that Dr. van Hoey, was cold or uncaring, regarding Eva’s wish to die, or her personal horrors of life.
    He was her primary care physician for many years and in close contact with Eva as well as her family and her psychiatrists, psychologists etc.!
    2. It takes 3 unrelated specialists, in Eva’s case 3 psychiatrists, independent of one another, to conclude, that the patient requesting euthanasia, has exhausted all available treatment options for her/his individual ailment, then an ethical comitee too, has to establish, that the person with the request to die, is of clear mind, not just screaming for help. In Eva’s case this was a very lengthy and for her partly dehumanizing venture to endure all of these required clearances, simply because of her young age and the fact that she suffered a psychiatric illness, not end stage cancer etc. where even non trained bystanders can see easily that such a person is terminally ill.
    3. Who are we, to judge, that a person who suffers from a psychiciatric illness for most of her life, who endured a battery of treatments, even electro shock therapy over years, without EVER having recovered, has NO right to end their life, again…just because they have a non-visuable illness and is very young.
    As a medical professional I have worked with psychiatric patients as well as patients suffering from end stage cancer etc.! But even for me it took years of practical insight to understand that some forms of depression are so debilitating to patients, that they have NO more life quality. They are unable to experience joy, every day is a struggle..and they are very aware, especially when young of age, that their life expectancy is very long yet every day seems like a lifetime to them.
    A “heathy” individual cannot, simply cannot understand the agony of such a persons life and fears.
    4. Eva tried this for the greater part of her life and could never achieve healing/recovery.
    5. Therefore, as much as it hurt me, Dr. van Huey, Eva’s family, the viewers, she longed for death, for getting out of this life that ailed her so much. She didn’t want lengthy good-bye’s. Her illness didn’t allow her teary-eyed good bye’s. She gave a faint smile to Dr. van Huey, when he asked her if she wanted to go on with her wish and if yes, if she was ready to lay down. He was/seemed very touched, when she gave him that faint smile, telling him how she longed to go to “sleep” eternally.
    He was very gentle injecting her, making sure that she did not experience any panic but was relaxed. After Eva’s passing she rested very peaceful and relaxed on her living room couch.
    Conclusion: To me, it was nice to witness Adelin, the old gentleman’s peaceful, assisted by high dose pain meds only, passing.

    It was sad to see, that nothing helped Eva…wanting to cuddle her, giving her strength to live life in a healthy/normal way…yet knowing, that I cannot provide this to her. But overall, I feel, that Eva had the same right than any human suffering from a lethal debilitating illness, to say “STOP…NO MORE…I AM DONE…I WANT TO GO”!
    I am happy that at lest her passing was gentle, as life was not gentle to/for her. I can only pray, that she is now in a better place, rejuvenated with a healthy mind.
    Having suffered a late diagnosed cancer myself, I feel strongly for the right/privilege of physician assisted suicide. If I would not have recovered..which was against ALL odds, I would have opted to go to Switzerland to seek “euthanasia” once my physical/emotional suffering became unbearable for me. Carefully monitored I demand this option for all humanity.

    This is dedicated to the memory of EVA and ADELIN❤❤ may they rest peacefully!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s