Abstract
AbstractIn this chapter, I evaluate from a philosophical perspective the ongoing discussions in the Belgian civil society triggered by the euthanasia law and its implementation in end-of-life care since 2002. I challenge the idea that the so-called normalization of euthanasia is an established fact and I contend that the ongoing discussions on the possible abuses of the law and the practice of euthanasia are unavoidable. I see three reasons for this. First, in contrast with what some think, euthanasia can never become a “normal” therapeutic option, that could be integrated in standard medical practice. Euthanasia is, by its very nature, a transgression of a fundamental moral taboo and will thus always, however liberal the law might be, challenge the conscience of some physicians. Secondly, because of its transgressive meaning, every act of euthanasia can always be contested by family members or the larger society. This is the case when euthanasia is given to patients who are not terminally ill (such as psychiatric patients), but also when a physician performs euthanasia in an undignified and negligent way. Thirdly, the very existence of the law puts pressure not only on patients and physicians but also the larger society. By making euthanasia into a symbol of the good death, a whole society loses its sensitivity for the intrinsic transgressive nature of euthanasia and creates all sorts of strategies to mask the wavering of conscience that results from this collective negligence. There is no way, so I conclude, to avoid this. The wavering of conscience will continue to haunt the end-of-life care in Belgium as long as the law on euthanasia remains as it is.
Highlights
One day when I no doubt needed to have some kind of feedback, I asked a sick person I was accompanying: “What do you expect of me?” He looked at me, replied: “I expect you to stand firm.” The roles were reversed down to the very words that were spoken
The euthanasia law has been established in Belgium since 2002
The depenalization of euthanasia puts pressure on the medical world and on society at large. This inevitably might trigger a conflict of conscience for the physician and the entire medical team involved in end-of-life care
Summary
The euthanasia law has been established in Belgium since 2002. The law states that a physician does not commit a crime in intentionally ending the patients’ life when he meets a number of strict conditions. From a philosophical point of view, I want to try to understand why euthanasia, as a symbol of a “good death,” and as a lived reality at the end-of-life, inevitably continues to have something unruly and confronts us with fundamental medical and moral questions and problems, next to personal tragedies and trauma’s among families of patients that receive euthanasia These experiences within the realm of end-of-life care lead to ongoing discussions at the level of civil society, whereby critical voices, asking for a serious and independent evaluation of the euthanasia social experiment, are countered by pro-euthanasia lobbyists who plea for a further extension of the law to people with dementia and a better access for patients with psychiatric afflictions and disorders. Does that pressure exist or does the law, based on self-determination, allows everyone the freedom to choose for euthanasia or not, free from any social pressure?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
