Is the Dutch euthanasia regulation compatible with Evangelium Vitae?

Abstract

The Netherlands was the first country in Western Europe to have a legal regulation on euthanasia. The law implies that euthanasia without a request by the patient (or surrogate) remains formally forbidden; how it enables the physician - who performs the euthanasia - to use the defence of force majeure which here implies a form of “necessity”. The necessity is defined as a conflict of duties: on the one hand the physician has the duty to respect the legal protection of life; on the other hand there should be the duty to relieve the patient’s suffering. These two duties would conflict when the usual means to alleviate the suffering are exhausted and the suffering could consequently only be taken away by terminating life. This conflict shows the weakness of the Dutch euthanasia regulation.

There should be a legal objection to the generalization of an appeal for a defence of necessity; every offence, including euthanasia, can theorically come under article 40 of the Dutch Criminal Code concerning force majeure, but an appeal to force majeure is intended by it only for isolated cases. Notwithstanding the formal confirmation of the potential for punishment in order to make euthanasia easier to control, in practice, however, this does not appear to be the case. Finally, the appeal to the defence of necessity in a case of euthanasia is in conflict with the basic principles of the natural law. Viewed in the light of John Paul’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, it could be qualified as a further contribution to the present culture of death.