Octoberr, 15 2004

To kill or not to kill? Television debate on the legalisation of active euthanasia.
By Petra Luna - Johannesburg

Dr Albu Van Eeden along with Dr. Debby Norval were invited to debate against the legalisation of active euthanasia. The debate was carried live on national television on station SABC 2.  Those debating for the legalisation were Professor Anton Van Niekerk and Mr. Fanie Du Toit.

Dr. Van Eeden presented an argument opposing mercy killing as an alleviation of incurable illnesses.  His arguments were based on research done in different countries where euthanasia has been legalised such as Holland .  In Holland doctors are allowed to assist patients suffering from incurable illnesses with the termination of life.  But this has also progressed into the termination of life of handicapped people as well as others.

Dr. Van Eeden emphasised the point of keeping active euthanasia under ban because of abuses that can arise from the relaxation of legislation.  He stressed that with the lifting of the ban there will be many others who are vulnerable such as the elderly, lonely, sick or even distressed.  All of these would feel pressured whether real or imagined to request early death.  He argued that it is impossible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia and to ensure that all acts are truly voluntary.  To create any exception to the prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way to the further erosion of the regulation by the simple human tendency to test it’s limits   Dr. Van Eeden’s opinions are  based on existing studies that demonstrate that this practice has already gone too far.  The statistics show that almost 9% of all Dutch people who die each year are intentionally killed by doctors.   Not only will the killing of the terminally ill be acceptable but it may eventually include the depressed, the physically handicapped, babies with birth defects and ultimately those who have not asked to be euthanised.  For example a nun in Holland was euthanised without her consent because the doctors felt she would not sign the consent forms due to her religious beliefs. 

Dr. Debby Norval argued that there is an alternative to euthanasia.  Hospice and palliative care services are available to provide support for patients as well as the families

of the terminally ill.  Dr. Norval also stated that the underlying psychological state of the patient has to be considered.  An American Cancer Society survey says that “Those who seriously consider the option of euthanasia are much more likely to be driven by depression rather than unrelenting pain”.  Dr. Norval also states that we have to treat the symptoms along with the physical illness.  “75% of elderly suicide victims had seen a physician the month before their death yet their depression went undiagnosed and untreated”.   New England Journal of Medicine.

Professor Van Niekerk challenged the above arguments, stating that a person who is terminally ill has a right to die with dignity if he or she chooses to end their lives. 

He stated that we are living in a democratic society therefore people have the right to decide for their lives whether they should live or die.   Neither Professor Van Niekerk nor Mr. Fanie Du Toit provided any opposing studies to refute the claims of the anti euthanasia team. 

There were prior taped interviews shown in which individuals were interviewed on the sanctity of life. 

A Rabbi stated “By no means is a man or a woman in a position to take human life when GOD is the only one authority to make that decision”.  Dr. Robert Rew from the United Stats of America testified that his mother was a victim of the dehumanising practice of euthanasia.  In her illness she was unable to make a sound decision for herself and none of her family was consulted before she was euthanised.   Dr. Rew therefore opposes the legalization of euthanasia.  He stated that “GOD is almighty and can do the impossible in people’s lives”.   Dr. Rew concluded his statement by arguing that his complete recovery from a bout with cancer is evidence of what GOD can do in people’s lives.

The television audience was allowed to call in throughout the show to cast their votes for or against the legalisation of active euthanasia based on the arguments that were presented.

At the end of the debate 74% of those who called in voted against the legalisation of euthanasia in support of the arguments presented by Drs. Albu Van Eeden and Debby Norval.