Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht, Netherlands, is seen in Cornwall, Ontario, Sept. 26, 2016. The Dutch cardinal spoke to Canadian bishops about the "slippery slope" of euthanasia. (CNS photo/CNS photo/Francois Gloutnay, Presence) 

MANCHESTER, England (CNS) -- A Dutch cardinal predicted that the number of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands will surge after the country's highest court gave the green light to allow the killing of dementia patients no longer able to give their consent.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled April 22 that doctors could euthanize patients with severe dementia and who could no longer express their wishes if they had left an advance request in writing to say they wished to die.

Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht, president of the Bishops' Conference of the Netherlands, said, however, the court's ruling would not only make it easier for doctors to take the lives of dementia patients but would also put them under pressure to do so.

"One may fear that the Supreme Court's judgment, though making physicians perhaps more uncertain in performing euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia, will not lead in general to a decrease of the number of cases of euthanasia and medically assisted suicide," Cardinal Eijk said on behalf of the bishops' conference.

"Patients and their relatives could think on the basis of the judgment ... that there is a kind of a right to euthanasia in cases of advanced dementia with suffering, deemed without prospect (of recovery) and unbearable, though the Supreme Court does not say that and the law on euthanasia does not oblige a physician to perform euthanasia," he said in a statement sent April 24 to Catholic News Service.

"Physicians of nursing homes therefore fear that they will be put under pressure by patients with dementia and their relatives to perform euthanasia as a consequence of the Supreme Court's judgment," he said.

The court sought to offer clarity to potential ambiguity in the law following the prosecution of a doctor who in 2016 drugged a woman with Alzheimer's disease after she resisted his attempts to give her a lethal injection.

The 74-year-old patient had earlier instructed her family that she wanted to die by euthanasia but at a time of her choosing. She became so demented that she could no longer say when she wished to die so her family chose the moment on her behalf. Because she fought against the injection, the doctor slipped sedatives into her coffee and her family held her down.

Prosecutors accused the doctor of ignoring a requirement of consent written into the Dutch euthanasia law of 2002, arguing the patient might have changed her mind about wishes she had expressed in writing four years before her death.

But a lower court ruled the doctor had not behaved illegally and in 2018 acquitted him, and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in The Hague for legal clarification "in the interest of the law."

The Supreme Court concluded that "a physician may carry out a written request beforehand for euthanasia in people with advanced dementia," providing other criteria on "unbearable and endless suffering" also were met.

In his statement, Cardinal Eijk noted that in 2017, during the prosecution of the doctor, the euthanasia rate fell by 7%, but in 2019, following his acquittal, it rose by nearly 4%.

The cardinal also questioned whether the advance declaration could still accurately express the actual will of a patient and said the new ruling created greater uncertainty rather than clarity over the practice of euthanasia.

"In her declaration, the woman said that she wanted euthanasia, when she would have been admitted to a nursing home one day, but something in this declaration remained unclear: she determined that the euthanasia should take place at a moment that she thought she would be ready for it," he said.

"But after having been admitted to a nursing home, she was not able to indicate whether she desired euthanasia or not," he said.

"With regard to the lack of clarity in the written euthanasia declaration, the Supreme Court judged that the physician has a certain room in interpreting the declaration," Cardinal Eijk continued

"The court thought that the physician was right in concluding on the basis of the declaration that the woman in question desired euthanasia under the given circumstances after all, though she could not herself indicate the moment of the euthanasia anymore because of advanced dementia."

He added, "Does the legal proceedings against the physician of the nursing home lead to the clarity, desired by the college of attorneys general? Physicians of nursing homes think that is not the case.

"Instead of laying down criteria for interpreting the written euthanasia declarations of patients with advanced dementia, the Supreme Court leaves this to the judgment of the physicians involved, by which their uncertainty only grows."

We don’t have comments turned on everywhere anymore. We have recently relaunched the commenting experience at America and are aiming for a more focused commenting experience with better moderation by opening comments on a select number of articles each day.

But we still want your feedback. You can join the conversation about this article with us in social media on Twitter or Facebook, or in one of our Facebook discussion groups for various topics.

Or send us feedback on this article with one of the options below:

We welcome and read all letters to the editor but, due to the volume received, cannot guarantee a response.

In order to be considered for publication, letters should be brief (around 200 words or less) and include the author’s name and geographic location. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

We open comments only on select articles so that we can provide a focused and well-moderated discussion on interesting topics. If you think this article provides the opportunity for such a discussion, please let us know what you'd like to talk about, or what interesting question you think readers might want to respond to.

If we decide to open comments on this article, we will email you to let you know.

If you have a message for the author, we will do our best to pass it along. Note that if the article is from a wire service such as Catholic News Service, Religion News Service, or the Associated Press, we will not have direct contact information for the author. We cannot guarantee a response from any author.

We welcome any information that will help us improve the factual accuracy of this piece. Thank you.

Please consult our Contact Us page for other options to reach us.

City and state/province, or if outside Canada or the U.S., city and country. 
When you click submit, this article page will reload. You should see a message at the top of the reloaded page confirming that your feedback has been received.

The latest from america

For people who live in New York City, Times Square is a nightmare place, a hellish whirlpool of bodies, noise and capitalism. But this weekend I discovered something new and not awful there.
Jim McDermottMay 17, 2022
For more than three decades, Mike Davis has offered clear and often stinging counterpoints to the prevailing vision of the “California Dream.”
James T. KeaneMay 17, 2022
We include fragments of poems that, while not contest finalists, provide one more way for America to shine a light on the ongoing horror in Ukraine.
Joe Hoover, S.J.May 17, 2022
I begged them: “Keep the money. Just give me the photos of my family.”
Lisa MullenneauxMay 17, 2022