Sir, - I write regarding Breda O'Brien's article (April 14th), concerning the recent qualified legislation of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
While I respect her best intentions and I share her concerns about possible abuse of the practise, there is nonetheless an overriding issue at stake - the right of every sane adult, in circumstances of unbearable quality of life, to decide for themselves to end their lives - however undesirable or tragic such a scenario may be, the Dutch legislation is a reasonably well-struck balance between pragmatism and health care.
It might well be argued that parliamentary sanctions of qualified occasions of euthanasia may result, in a small percentage of cases, in urging people in very difficult circumstances to opt for assisted suicide rather than pursuing other therapeutic possibilities. I believe that the legislation provides sufficient safeguards in this regard.
Concerning the statistics quoted by Breda O'Brien - Dutch government surveys in 1990 and 1995 supposedly revealing non-explicit consent in cases involving euthanasia - 30.76 per cent and 22.56 per cent respectively - she is being at best disingenuous.
I am informed by the spokesperson of the information section of the Dutch Justice Department that in all cases not prosecuted for illegal medical practice (ie., circa 99.9 per cent): (1) either a previous desire for euthanasia to be enacted was expressed before lucidity lapsed (ie., irreversible coma), and/or (2) a quasi-vegetative state obtained and with severe distress and thereabouts one month's life expectancy was symptomatically present.
While it was once a hugely controversial subject for someone, in similar circumstances as described above, to have artificially sustained life-support systems withdrawn, very few, if any, legally entitled to make such a heart-rending decision would now opt for a continued vegetative/comatose state; beyond reprieve and where great suffering is likely.
Breda O'Brien also makes reference to two cases: the assisted "killing" of former Senator Edward Brangersna, who had no serious illness (my italics), but at 86 was "tired of living".
Also she mentions another assisted suicide - that of a 50year-old healthy (my italics) woman, described as suffering pathological grief over the death of her two sons.
Whatever these two unfortunate individuals suffered from, it was unlikely to have been breathtakingly inept descriptive logic on a similar scale. Ms O'Brien also states that there is always an alternative to euthanasia - that palliative care can ensure death with dignity. Well, so too can euthanasia as Dutch law allows for. Yes, strict policing of such practice must obtain, but the Dutch have done away with another taboo in as humane and cautious a manner as possible.
Breda O'Brien's inability to distinguish between religious mores and democratic rights have left her (most probably quite sincerely), in a position where she has disingenuously and emotionally distorted statistics.
I have no wish to foster or encourage a culture of suicide, but whether the law in any given state forbids it, it is as effective as outlawing variations of climate - i.e., unworkable.
Perhaps rather than being frowned upon, the Dutch should be congratulated for, yet again, their enlightened, pragmatic and humane approach to a societal taboo, - Yours, etc.,
D.P. Murray, Washington Park, Templeogue, Dublin 14.