By Dave Andrusko

Ben White and Lindy Willmott
On Wednesday we wrote that while Belgium had been on the receiving end of considerable criticism for legalizing neonatal euthanasia, we hadn’t seen any America medical organization join the chorus opposing the elimination of any minimum age.
Then the American College of Pediatricians thoroughly bashed the bill (which needs only the King’s signature to become law) and “alert[ed] healthcare professionals to the possibility of similar legislation in the United States.”
Yesterday Paul Russell wrote that most, but not all, pro-euthanasia commentators “have been utterly silent.” And while that’s true, you know two things for sure: (1) that silence won’t last for long; and (2) already some of the more sophisticated proponents are assuring people that “it can’t happen here”–wherever “here” is—or at least not in the same exact form.
Russell alluded to a commentary by Australian academics Ben White and Lindy Willmott, who support euthanasia and assisted suicide. They “tried to dismiss the Belgian news in an article on The Conversation,” an academic journal.
So I went to the source and read their piece—“Belgium’s child euthanasia law–implications for Australia.” What does it tell us? A lot.
Initially you might take consolation from this honest admission:
“Opponents of reform in Australia might argue that the Belgian experience is evidence of the so-called ‘slippery slope’ – that once assisted dying is legalised for competent adults, the criteria would inevitably expand over time to include other cohorts of people, such as children. And this is precisely what happened in Belgium.”
But, not to worry, White and Willmott inform us. Why not?
First, never mind that there is no age limit for the children who will die (“access euthanasia”). Even so, this “cohort” is “narrow.”
To justify that conclusion they recycle the “safeguards” which critics have rightly pointed out aren’t worth the breath it takes to utter them. But they’re satisfied, so “Claims that there are no age limits to access euthanasia need to be tempered by a wider look at the requirements of the relevant law.”
So what’s included in that “wider look”? How about the issue of the aforementioned “slippery slope”? Sure, it took place in Belgium but how about Australia?
Relax. The euthanasia debate has been around in Australia for a long time and with one (temporary) exception, all “reform” efforts have failed. Then the key assertion:
“This suggests that should assisted dying become lawful in Australia, a cautious and careful approach would be taken to arguments about widening criteria for who can access the scheme.”
Get it? They are not saying “assisted dying” won’t come to Australia—after all, they are proponents. It’s just that if it does, the slippery slope won’t happen overnight. Any widening of the pool of candidates will be carefully thought through.
“So, it seems that further reform would be slow and evidence-based. There would be points along the way down the ‘slope’ to carefully consider what has happened to date and whether a change in law is justified.
“And the very effective opposition to euthanasia – that has prevented reform in Australia – would be instrumental in ensuring any further steps were considered carefully and that important considerations, such as protecting the vulnerable, were taken into account by legislators.”
Not that it won’t happen—“it” being the extension of “access to euthanasia.” It’s just if it does happen, it’ll be gradual and will have to negotiate opposition.
But nothing–nothing–about the experience in Belgium and its northern neighbor, the Netherlands, suggests there is a shred of truth in this reassuring prediction. “Abuses” will be rampant—that is, doctors will ignore the limitations—followed by (as Wesley Smith has so astutely noted) “the typical euthanasia metastasizing: Doctors break the guidelines and then the answer is to expand the guidelines rather than punish the doctors.”
Finally, White and Willmott tell Nervous Nellies to hold their horses. After all these are
“hypothetical discussions because in the debate to date, the issue of children seeking to access voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide has not been canvassed in proposed Australian reforms. The focus of legislative activity has been on competent adults and, generally, only those with a terminal illness.”
As dishonest and evil as this is, you almost have to smile. Of course it’s only been about “competent adults and, generally, only those with a terminal illness” to date. It always starts there, but it never stops there. Indeed, it barely pauses there.
But the final reason not to be concerned is that
“Belgium is literally on the other side of the world in terms of this issue, due in part to a different culture and history in this field. Australia is in a different place and asking different questions.”
Agreed. Belgium is a different place, a different culture, with a different history, at least on this issue. Which misses the whole point.
It’s not just the obvious—that there is contagion-like effect to the passage of assisted suicide laws, both within a country and across borders. Canadian Kevin Yuill caught it perfectly.
Quebec has its own proposal which has picked up enormous momentum. Yuill wrote recently
“Voters in Quebec who will soon consider Bill 52, which would legalise euthanasia in the Canadian province, should keep in mind that this is where voluntary-death campaigns are headed, despite the much-vaunted ‘safeguards’. A society that thinks those who are terminally ill and depressed should be given the option to die will logically extend such ‘benefits’ to those who are over 70 or to others who are simply ‘tired of life’.”
And as both the Netherlands and Belgium have shown the “extension” will be to the very young–12 and up in the Netherlands–and to any age—in Belgium.
Or as John Updike once wrote, “Death, once invited in, leaves his muddy footprints everywhere.”
Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.