Now that it’s too late to turn back.
In our open letter in the Artsenkrant (September 2015) we have already drawn attention to the legal uncertainty for the doctor in cases of euthanasia based on purely psychological suffering. In this opinion piece we draw attention to its particularly problematic character, in particular the impossibility of objectifying the hopelessness of psychological suffering.
One would expect that the untreatable nature of this condition is supported by, for example, indications of an organic injury, or of tissue damage — in other words, with factors independent of what is subjectively felt or thought as a result of the disease. Such objectification is problematic in mental suffering.
Reality check: It’s not “problematic”; it’s impossible. But one thing we may be sure of; euthanasia for psychological suffering is one less pension to pay, for a possibly marginally employable person who can easily be convinced to get involved in the death drama, possibly in part for the attention.
It’s significant that so few people can give themselves the right to talk about this obvious factor in the euthanasia drive. One thing about the abortion issue: People were frank about their wish to just be rid of the child for their own sakes. This ghastly puppet theatre must instead feature loud assertions of the victim’s “rights” instead
See also: It continues: Quebec, maybe Canada, to falsify euthanasia death certificates
The right to falsify a death certificate when someone is killed will doubtless prove very convenient in days to come. (Note how few people we meet care or notice.)
It’s not a real drama like this any more. People are just disposable now: