Post-Birth Abortions Up to 12-Years-Old Normalizes in Europe and Canada Under The Guise of ‘Euthanasia’.
BY JAKE WELCH
MAY 1, 2023
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/ni ... oos-lijden
The Dutch government will expand pre-existing euthanasia rules first introduced in 2002, effectively expanding post-birth abortions at the discretion of medical staff and healthcare providers.
The amendments were added to the “Law Termination of Pregnancy and Life Termination of Newborns Regulations (LZA/LP),” which permitted the “termination” of children “suffering hopelessly and unbearably,” and who are “expected to die in the foreseeable future.” The law, which was restricted to up to one year, now permits children of all ages in what effectively amounts to post-birth abortion.
Regarding the new laws, the Dutch Minister for Health, Welfare, and Sport, Ernst Kuipers of the socially Liberal Democrat 66 Party, publicly stated:
“This is a particularly complex subject that deals with very distressing situations. Situations you wouldn’t wish on anyone. I am pleased that, after intensive consultation with all parties involved, we have reached a solution that will help these incurably ill children, their parents, and also their practitioners.”
The Dutch government took the decision to expand on the current rules to include all ages in order to remove practitioners’ reservations about either aborting viable humans or euthanizing infants up to one year old. The legislation has been introduced, according to the government’s published report, to “remove th[e] reluctance as much as possible,” of doctors undertaking the procedure.
“The evaluation shows that the LZA/LP Regulation is not yet functioning well. Doctors feel reluctant to perform late termination of pregnancy or life termination in newborns. The government has decided to amend the current Regeling LZA/LP, in line with the recommendations of the evaluation, to remove this reluctance as much as possible and make the regulation work better in practice,” reads the government report.
Much of the discretion about what “hopeless and unbearable suffering” is lies with doctors:
“The revised regulation does not formulate separate due diligence requirements in respect of life termination in children aged 1-12. The profession is asked to formulate the standards of care based on case histories and further norm development. This means that, based on prevailing medical insight, a doctor must come to the conviction that life termination is the only reasonable alternative to remove the child’s hopeless and unbearable suffering.”
According to the new rules, doctors need only consider previous cases in conjunction with the patient’s history, to determine whether “euthanasia” is suitable.
Belgium was the first country to remove the age restrictions governing access to state-sanctioned murder in 2014. Belgian law only requires children to be able to “understand” what the procedure is in a wider context, to be suffering from “chronic pain,” and have the consent of the parents.
Canada, too, is currently debating the introduction of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) for “mature minors” in its “Report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.”
Unlike either Belgium or Netherlands, however, Canada’s new laws may only require parental consultation “where appropriate,” because the decision of a mature minor “ultimately take(s) priority.”
In response to these proposals, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition argued: “The recommendations being put forth by [the committee] would give Canada the most permissive euthanasia law in the world. Given the current state of Canada, where vulnerable people continue to be pressured to euthanasia on a frequent basis, it is inappropriate for the government to consider these radical expansions to the euthanasia law.”