The European Court of Human Rights has found that Belgium violated the right to life in the 2012 euthanasia of Godelieva de Troyer by failing to properly investigate the circumstances leading to her death. In finding a violation under Article 2—the right to life—of the European Convention for Human Rights, this judgment, and the facts of the case, lay bare the lie that euthanasia is rare and carefully ‘safeguarded.’
Since legalising euthanasia in 2002, according to official statistics, more than 27,000 individuals have been euthanized in Belgium, now averaging 7 people per day. That number may be artificially low given documented issues with underreporting.
Today’s judgment can be traced back to 2014, when one man decided to lift the lid on the grim reality behind those big numbers. Belgian university lecturer Tom Mortier hadn’t given his country’s permissive euthanasia laws much thought until his wife took a call from the hospital. His mother had been euthanized the previous day, they said. She was 64 years old and physically healthy. The diagnosis? “Incurable depression.” Her diagnosis would set in motion a devastating chain of events, culminating in an application by Tom to the court for justice on account of what happened to his mother.
Back in 2002, euthanasia was framed as an ‘exception’ for the most serious and terminal cases. But as euthanasia begins, it rarely continues. The numbers shot up from 24 cases in 2002 to almost 10 times that number in a year. By 2019, euthanasia cases had reached 2,656 per year and the number has gone up every single year, with the exception of the start of the pandemic. Nowadays, about 1 in 50 deaths in the country are by euthanasia, generally by way of lethal injection. Moreover, 18% of recent euthanasia deaths in Belgium were for “polypathologies” or, as defined by the country’s commission for euthanasia compliance, “people who are often of an advanced age and have an accumulation of all kind of minor conditions that as such are maybe not truly serious.”
The conditions for euthanasia are spiraling out of control. In 2014, Belgium legalized euthanasia for children, with no lower age limit. In 2020, it expanded the law further requiring doctors who object to the practice to actively refer their patient to a pro-euthanasia organisation. Now, there are calls for the law to cover individuals who simply feel “tired of life.”
Perhaps intending to provide reassurance, leading euthanasia advocate and co-chairman of the Federal Euthanasia Commission, Dr. Wim Distelmans has stated, “if there are any doubts regarding the conditions [for euthanasia], we must pass it on to the courts.”
The courts can never bring back a life, but they can provide some measure of legal oversight. For a true picture of this ‘safeguard’ in practice, however, consider what happened in the case of Godelieva de Troyer. Despite Dr. Distelmans’ apparent enthusiasm for the courts, the commission he leads did not refer the case of Tom’s mother to the prosecutor. According to the Belgian government, this was the commission’s “unanimous” view. And yet that commission had the benefit of the euthanasia notification form, which revealed a number of clear violations of Belgium’s euthanasia law. While these range from the less to the more serious, the real relevance is that the Federal Commission had access to this document and yet saw no reason for concern.
And yet even this is not even the most troubling aspect. Dr. Distelmans himself—the co-chair of the commission—was the doctor who euthanized Tom’s mother.
According to documents filed by the Belgian government with the court, that breathtakingly obvious conflict of interest was dealt with by Dr. Distelmans sitting silently in the room while his peers determined whether one of his cases should be sent to the prosecutor.
It is on these grounds that the court found a violation of the right to life, ruling that the euthanasia commission lacked the independence to conduct proper post-mortem supervision—technical language for the total inability of this body to impart any sort of real oversight in an utterly corrupt process. Unfortunately, the court did not rule against Belgium’s euthanasia laws, and even gave a nod to the importance of ‘safeguards,’ despite finding that such safeguards were not able to protect the right to life in this case.
Those who advocate for euthanasia speak gleefully of autonomy. And yet, while the vulnerable, sick, and disabled are subject to ever-increasing pressure, the only people acting with absolute autonomy appear to be the practitioners of euthanasia themselves.
Meanwhile, the reality is that skyrocketing euthanasia rates and ever-easing conditions, all without accountability, send a devastating message. It says that at some point, a life is just no longer worth living. It speaks of lethal fatalism instead of hope to people who are struggling. Those who may feel that they are a burden on their loved ones are encouraged to opt for the ‘selfless’ option. It’s no surprise that most disability advocates oppose this practice. Legalized euthanasia is nothing more than counterfeit compassion and we owe it to each other—in all our vulnerability—to do better.
Euthanasia is Counterfeit Compassion
The European Court of Human Rights has found that Belgium violated the right to life in the 2012 euthanasia of Godelieva de Troyer by failing to properly investigate the circumstances leading to her death. In finding a violation under Article 2—the right to life—of the European Convention for Human Rights, this judgment, and the facts of the case, lay bare the lie that euthanasia is rare and carefully ‘safeguarded.’
Since legalising euthanasia in 2002, according to official statistics, more than 27,000 individuals have been euthanized in Belgium, now averaging 7 people per day. That number may be artificially low given documented issues with underreporting.
Today’s judgment can be traced back to 2014, when one man decided to lift the lid on the grim reality behind those big numbers. Belgian university lecturer Tom Mortier hadn’t given his country’s permissive euthanasia laws much thought until his wife took a call from the hospital. His mother had been euthanized the previous day, they said. She was 64 years old and physically healthy. The diagnosis? “Incurable depression.” Her diagnosis would set in motion a devastating chain of events, culminating in an application by Tom to the court for justice on account of what happened to his mother.
Back in 2002, euthanasia was framed as an ‘exception’ for the most serious and terminal cases. But as euthanasia begins, it rarely continues. The numbers shot up from 24 cases in 2002 to almost 10 times that number in a year. By 2019, euthanasia cases had reached 2,656 per year and the number has gone up every single year, with the exception of the start of the pandemic. Nowadays, about 1 in 50 deaths in the country are by euthanasia, generally by way of lethal injection. Moreover, 18% of recent euthanasia deaths in Belgium were for “polypathologies” or, as defined by the country’s commission for euthanasia compliance, “people who are often of an advanced age and have an accumulation of all kind of minor conditions that as such are maybe not truly serious.”
The conditions for euthanasia are spiraling out of control. In 2014, Belgium legalized euthanasia for children, with no lower age limit. In 2020, it expanded the law further requiring doctors who object to the practice to actively refer their patient to a pro-euthanasia organisation. Now, there are calls for the law to cover individuals who simply feel “tired of life.”
Perhaps intending to provide reassurance, leading euthanasia advocate and co-chairman of the Federal Euthanasia Commission, Dr. Wim Distelmans has stated, “if there are any doubts regarding the conditions [for euthanasia], we must pass it on to the courts.”
The courts can never bring back a life, but they can provide some measure of legal oversight. For a true picture of this ‘safeguard’ in practice, however, consider what happened in the case of Godelieva de Troyer. Despite Dr. Distelmans’ apparent enthusiasm for the courts, the commission he leads did not refer the case of Tom’s mother to the prosecutor. According to the Belgian government, this was the commission’s “unanimous” view. And yet that commission had the benefit of the euthanasia notification form, which revealed a number of clear violations of Belgium’s euthanasia law. While these range from the less to the more serious, the real relevance is that the Federal Commission had access to this document and yet saw no reason for concern.
And yet even this is not even the most troubling aspect. Dr. Distelmans himself—the co-chair of the commission—was the doctor who euthanized Tom’s mother.
According to documents filed by the Belgian government with the court, that breathtakingly obvious conflict of interest was dealt with by Dr. Distelmans sitting silently in the room while his peers determined whether one of his cases should be sent to the prosecutor.
It is on these grounds that the court found a violation of the right to life, ruling that the euthanasia commission lacked the independence to conduct proper post-mortem supervision—technical language for the total inability of this body to impart any sort of real oversight in an utterly corrupt process. Unfortunately, the court did not rule against Belgium’s euthanasia laws, and even gave a nod to the importance of ‘safeguards,’ despite finding that such safeguards were not able to protect the right to life in this case.
Those who advocate for euthanasia speak gleefully of autonomy. And yet, while the vulnerable, sick, and disabled are subject to ever-increasing pressure, the only people acting with absolute autonomy appear to be the practitioners of euthanasia themselves.
Meanwhile, the reality is that skyrocketing euthanasia rates and ever-easing conditions, all without accountability, send a devastating message. It says that at some point, a life is just no longer worth living. It speaks of lethal fatalism instead of hope to people who are struggling. Those who may feel that they are a burden on their loved ones are encouraged to opt for the ‘selfless’ option. It’s no surprise that most disability advocates oppose this practice. Legalized euthanasia is nothing more than counterfeit compassion and we owe it to each other—in all our vulnerability—to do better.
READ NEXT
St. Hedwig’s: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
‘Young Leaders of the Iberosphere’ Programme Is Paving the Way for a Promising Future
Jaguar: All Virtue, No Vehicle