"We need to be willing to take a hit for Religious Freedom"

Lord David Alton

This is a full transcript, in the original English, of my short interview with Lord David Alton. It took place in September 2017, at a reception at the Houses of Parliament, which he hosted for participants of the Alliance Defending Freedom Press Symposium.

Esta é uma transcrição integral, no inglês original, da minha curta conversa com Lorde David Alton. Decorreu no passado mês de Setembro, 2017, durante uma recepção no Parlamento Britânico, que ele organizou para os participantes no Simpósio de Imprensa convocado pela Alliance Defending Freedom. A reportagem portuguesa está aqui.

Is religious liberty and freedom of conscience under threat in Western Europe and in the UK specifically?

Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists that it is every person's right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief, and all three elements are under attack both here in countries like the UK, where people are discriminated against, or outright persecution in countries like Saudi Arabia, or China, where it is impossible to follow your beliefs in the way you would wish.

So there is a sort of hierarchy. It would be absurd to suggest that in countries like the UK that it is as difficult to be a Christian as it is in North Korea, obviously that is absurd, but nevertheless we should be careful about the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

The attacks come in a slightly different way. The devil comes in carpet slippers, in a society like this. So you see a harbinger in the dismissal of two catholic nurses, midwives, in Scotland, who refused to collaborate in an abortion. They said they are called to deliver babies, not to take their lives. As a result of that they lost their jobs. If they had been doctors they would have been protected under a conscience clause. But because they are not doctors they weren't, and I think we need to strengthen our laws so that conscience prevails in situations of that kind.

There is one case I know affected you personally, to do with the Catholic adoption agencies, at the time of gay adoption legislation. Are these the types of situation which are mounting up to pose a threat to conscience protection?

Yes, and society loses a great deal when it discriminates against religious communities because it can't accept that they are entitled to have a different view about something such as adoption or marriage. These are fundamental questions that affect people in a very personal way, and people have got to learn to live and let live.

Forcing the closure of adoption agencies hurts children, it becomes part of an ideology, the latest of which is gender ideology. And I think we have got to stand firm against these things and say that you must learn to live alongside us respectfully, and we must learn to live alongside you respectively. Its the dignity of difference.

You mentioned Tim Farron and Reese Mogg in your speech... Is it in fact becoming increasingly difficult, or even impossible, to hold public office and espouse religious beliefs?

Well, it goes up and down. If you think, here we are standing on the terrace of Parliament. If you think back 200 years, there was a young man who was the youngest member of the House of Commons, who was criticised for trying to impose his Christian views on the House of Commons. His name was William Wilberforce. He was opposed to slavery. It took him 40 years to challenge people's belief that it was their right to choose to own another human being as a slave, merely because of the colour of their skin. If he had accepted the criticism that he had no right to argue his beliefs in our House of Commons, we would probably have slavery with us to this very day.

So in every generation you have to be willing to take a hit. People don't like what you have to say, that doesn't mean it is wrong. The beauty of democracy is that you have to win the argument. Why are they so frightened of even hearing the arguments? Why are they saying that someone like Tim Farron shouldn't be able to lead a political party because of his Christian Faith? Why are they saying that someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg shouldn't be a Conservative member of Parliament because he opposes abortion? If they are in favour of choice, let them also be in favour of also hearing alternative views, and let people then choose which one they happen to want to support. It shows a fear, I think, on the part of people who are opposed to things that men like Tim Farron and Jacob Rees-Mogg stand for.

In terms of conscience protection and traditional values, is Brussels an obstacle or a help in this situation?

I think it very much depends on the issue. You take an issue like human embryology, our laws, which permit the destruction of human embryos over the first 14 days of their life, has led to the destruction of 2 million human embryos. We've even permitted the creation of animal human hybrid embryos. This is something that is prohibited in most EU countries and not facilitated by the EU.

Take things like the abortion laws. We allow abortion up to and even during birth, on a baby with a disability, and up to 24 weeks gestation in other circumstances. The EU average term limit is around 12 weeks. So who'se laws are more liberal, and who's are more conservative? But take euthanasia, and in Holland and in Belgium they have permissive euthanasia laws. In Holland more than 4000 people die every year from Euthanasia, 1.000 of which are without the consent of the patient. In this country, the UK, we have prohibited that. So this is a debate which is running at different levels in different jurisdictions. This isn't about left or right, its about right or wrong. Its not about being European or British, its about standing four square in the belief that every human being is made in the image of God, that they are therefore unique and worthy of our protection.

Inter-religious statement on euthanasia, in Portugal

Care, with compassion, until the end

Inter-religious statement on euthanasia

The debate currently underway in Portugal about what has been labelled “assisted death” invites all of us to reflect and offer their contribution to enrich a process of dialogue which requires the intervention of all social agents. The religious traditions bear a message about the life and death of man, as well as the model of society we build, and it is both legitimate and necessary that they present this message with freedom and humility.

At a time when Parliament debates and prepares to vote on proposals for a possible law on euthanasia, we, the undersigned religious communities present in Portugal, having gathered to discuss and reflect together, and aware that we are living moments of great importance for our time collective future, do declare:

1. The dignity of those who suffer

We believe that each human being is unique and, as such, irreplaceable and necessary to the society of which he or she is a part, bestowed with an intrinsic dignity which is prior to any criteria of quality of life or usefulness, until the time of natural death. Not only does life not lose its dignity as it draws to its end, but the vulnerability with which it is clothed in this stage is, rather, a badge of special dignity which requires proximity and care. We do believe that suffering should be avoided if possible and, therefore, we give thanks for the fact that medical and pharmacological sciences have developed to such an extent that they allow for an effective relief of pain and promotion of well-being. However, we do not ignore the dramatic nature of suffering and the difficulty in finding meaning in continued life. We are aware that religion offers the possibility of meaning to those who believe, but we also know, from experience in accompanying so many who are not religious, that belief is not a necessary condition to finding meaning in one’s own suffering. With these our brothers we learn, indeed, that this task represents one of the greatest achievements of personal dignity. One’s dignity does not depend on anything other than existence as a person and personal autonomy cannot be emptied of its social meaning.

2. For a merciful and compassionate society

The suffering at the end of life is a spiritual challenge for each individual and an ethical challenge for society as a whole. Principles such as mercy and compassion are common to the different religious traditions and, over the history of civilization, have given rise to social models capable of creating, in each period, precise ways of accompanying and caring for the most fragile members of society. Today, human death is one of the areas which challenges us. What is asked of us is not that we give up on those living their final stages of life, by offering them the legal possibility of death, which can be the result of suffering without adequate care. It is this suffering which is truly unbearable and which gives rise to the will to die. It is the fruit of a society which abandons, which loses its humanity and becomes indifferent. Our beliefs in this respect are confirmed by our experience that people who are properly accompanied neither despair nor ask to die. What is asked of us, therefore, is that we commit ourselves more deeply to those who are living through this stage, taking upon ourselves the necessity of offering them a humane and accompanied death.  

3. Palliative Care, a necessity which cannot be delayed

We believe that palliative care is the most complete expression of this service which the state is obliged to give, since it results from the highest technical and scientific skill and competence in compassion, both of which are needed when dealing with people in the final stage of life. True compassion does not insist on futile treatment in an attempt to prolong life, but helps people to experience their own death as humanely as possible, recognising that it is only natural. Palliative care values a person until their natural end, alleviating their suffering, fighting off loneliness through the presence of family and other loved ones. We ask Portuguese society to rise up to this challenge, which can no longer be postponed, of making palliative care available to all, and we take upon ourselves the task of doing all that we possibly can to participate in this national effort. We cannot help but to ask if this current debate, preceding as it does an investment in proper palliative care, does not betray a lack of truth.

Religious traditions profess that life is a precious gift, with Abrahamic religions stressing that it is a gift from God and, as such, sacred in nature; but this only confirms its natural dignity, from whence stem its inherent inviolability and unavailability which, therefore, do not rest on religious foundations. But religion does give life a meaning, a hope and other possibilities of transcendence. Societies need this vision of man to stand alongside all the others which exist.

We, the religious communities present in Portugal, believe that life is inviolable until natural death and we share the belief in a compassionate model of society. For this reason, in the name of humanity and the future of the human community, we feel called to take part in the current debate on assisted death, to express our opposition to its legalisation under any of its forms, be it assisted suicide or euthanasia. Therefore we put our names to this common statement.

Lisbon, May 16^th, 2018

Portuguese Evangelical Alliance -  Pastor Jorge Humberto, representing the president Pedro Calaim

Portuguese Hindu Community – Mr Kiritkumar Bachu

Islamic Community of Lisbon – Sheikh David Munir

Israeli Community of Lisbon – Rabbi Natan Peres

Catholic Church – Cardinal Patriarch D. Manuel Clemente

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – Archpriest Ivan Moody

Portuguese Buddhist Union – Diogo Lopes

Portuguese Union of Seventh Day Adventists – Pastor António Carvalho, representing the president, pastor António Amorim

“Euthanasia is bad medicine”

Robert Clarke

This is a full transcript, in the original English, of an interview with Robert Clarke, of ADF International, about euthanasia in Belgium. The news report, in Portuguese, can be read here.

Esta é uma transcrição completa, no inglês original, de uma entrevista a Robert Clarke, da ADF International, sobre a eutanásia na Bélgica. A reportagem pode ser lida aqui.

Could you briefly explain what ADF is and its mission?

ADF International is a legal alliance building organization, which advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith. We are headquartered in Vienna, but with offices in Geneva, Strasbourg, Brussels within Europe, and other offices outside of Europe, including in the United Nations, New York, Washington DC; we have positioned ourselves at the international institutions across the world in order to advocate for that right of people to freely live out their faith.

And you help people of any faith?

That's right. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right and one which we support and uphold.

I understand ADF represents Mr. Tom Mortier in his case in the European Court of Human Rights. Could you explain the basics of the case?

Tom's mother was euthanized at the hands of a Belgian doctor in 2012. He didn't know about it until the following day, when the hospital phoned his home number and asked him to come and make the necessary arrangements. 

This changed his world, changed his family, his children's understanding and we say, fundamentally, that Euthanasia is bad medicine. It was offered to a woman, his mother in this case, who was diagnosed with depression, an illness which is episodic in nature and yet she was able to go to a doctor and obtain a prescription for death. 

What exactly is he asking the ECHR?

He is challenging the position of Belgium, at the ECHR, on essentially three grounds: 

He says that the country didn't uphold his mother's right to life, that is to say that a government has the responsibility to protect its citizens right to life, guaranteed under the convention but, more particularly it has the obligation to protect vulnerable citizens and we say that someone who is diagnosed as suffering with depression is a particularly vulnerable person, and that the government has an obligation to protect. Moreover we say that Belgium has violated Tom's right to his family life and that Belgium has failed to provide an adequate remedy to these violations. 

The difficulty in this case is that the same person has essentially acted as judge, jury and executioner. The doctor in question, the doctor who euthanized Tom's mother, sits as the co-chair of the federal commission which is responsible for regulating Euthanasia in the country, so we have the same person who is not only a prominent advocate for Euthanasia in the country, but is carrying out euthanasia and is then sitting on the panel which revues all the euthanasia deaths in the country to decide whether they complied with the law, so we say that the safeguards that the government suggests were built into the law are not adequate and that they cannot be adequate and certainly the context of this case shows everything that can and does go wrong where euthanasia is legalized. 

If the case goes your way, is this something that could make euthanasia illegal in Belgium?

The ECHR is considering a specific case here and at the current time the emphasis has shifted back to Belgium. The public prosecutor is in receipt of a file and is looking into it and the decision rests with them at the moment, as to whether or not they continue with the investigation. Of course the ECHR will be very interested to hear the outcome of that, and we'll continue to push things there if the prosecutor decides not to take any action or causes an undue delay in carrying out their investigation and any possible remedy for Tom.

The position of the ECHR is that it will look into the case and we hope, yes, that it will challenge the legislation that Belgium has put in place, which fails to protect the vulnerable in society, which fail's to protect people like Tom's mother, and fails to protect people like Tom.

Mr. Mortier has said that before this issue struck so close to home he didn’t really bother about Euthanasia, considering that it was an individual decision which didn’t concern him or others. We keep hearing that vast majorities in Belgium, Holland and Switzerland support Euthanasia, is this why?

Certainly our experience is that there is a huge level of ambivalence, a huge level of people not really engaging with it, because it doesn't strike close to home. And that is absolutely right. Tom shared with us that before this happened it wasn't an issue which he thought was particularly relevant for him, it wasn't one he'd given a great deal of thought too. 

And now, without wanting to be the centre of this, without wanting to be the face of this - in fact he want's quite the opposite of that - he's felt compelled to speak on behalf of others who haven't had the confidence to speak out but have felt the same way.

And we do see that, we see more and more voices speaking out and challenging this. In relation to discussions in Belgium to extend Euthanasia not only to children, which has now been passed into law, but a discussion in relation to patients suffering from dementia, patients who don't have the capacity essentially.

The discussion going on there has prompted a number of prominent academics, people in the public eye, to right an open letter criticizing that proposal. So we are seeing, increasingly, people recognizing these laws for the dangerous precedents that they set and the very real danger that they put society's most week and society's most vulnerable, the elderly, the sick, the very real danger that it places these people under.

Tom Mortier's mother

You mentioned some aspects of the current debate... Could you describe the current law about Euthanasia in Belgium?

The law in Belgium allows someone who is suffering from a condition - and its not necessary for that condition to be physical, it can be mental, which is a significant difficulty - to approach a doctor, there is no requirement for that doctor to be their treating physician, and indeed in Mrs Mortier's case, the person consulted was not her treating physician, she had a treating psychiatrist of many years, who had on her initial request suggested that she wouldn't be a candidate for euthanasia, that it wasn't an appropriate option for her, and so she approached Dr. Distelmans someone who is very well known in the media, someone who has a high public profile, and asked if he would do it. 

As I say, there is no requirement any longer that the patient be an adult, or that they have obtained the age of majority. The request has to be made, it has to be repeated, and the law says that it cannot be the result of any external pressure. Well how do you assess that?

This is a difficulty which we see throughout the law, because it asks that the patient in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering, which cannot be alleviated... These are difficult judgements, and essentially when you ask questions like “is the request voluntary?” and “is it well considered?” That is not a medical judgement, that is not the sort of judgement that a doctor has been trained for and, in our experience, it is a decision many doctors don't feel comfortable with it and it is not something that they are trained to do or want to do, and in a lot of cases it is not something that they feel is right, to assess whether or not a patient is in a state of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated and has made a well-considered and repeated request.

In short there are just no safeguards within this law that would put anyone's mind at rest that this is a practice which is safe, that it should be encouraged, or should be promoted. We see it time and time again, the cases come up which raise very serious questions. 

In fact the first time in the history of the federal Euthanasia commission's reviews of these cases, they referred a case for criminal investigation, in relation to a physically healthy elderly lady who had simply become "tired of living" and despite what some people would say are the safeguards in the law, she was able to go through the process and be euthanized at the hands of, again, another well-known doctor who is an outspoken advocate for euthanasia. 

Euthanasia is also legal for children, under the age of consent. How does it work in those situations?

In relation to children this is a new law and as far as I am aware there have not been any cases yet coming out of Belgium where children have accessed this. It requires a consultation, a discussion with parents, but ultimately if the child has obtained a sufficient understanding, and again, this is something which I suggest is not a medical diagnosis or procedure, but if the child has obtained an understanding, such that they understand the nature of what is being discussed, then the decision is handed over to them. 

Again, we are looking at weak and vulnerable members of society. We are looking at children, who in many of these cases would have years to live, in respect of whom there are different treatment options, but instead are being offered which we say is in fact no treatment at all. 

I have also heard about concerns for freedom of Conscience…

Absolutely. There is a recent case, ongoing at the moment, against a Catholic Care Home which wanted to be a care home in which Euthanasia was not provided as an option, that was its conscientious conviction, and the decision of that care home is being challenged in the courts. 

That is what we see. We see an assault on the Freedom of Conscience of medical professionals, many of whom actually say because of the atmosphere in Belgium, which can be very hostile when people have spoken out. Tom has spoken about this. The reaction to the Church when they spoke out about it, is not atypical. When people speak out against Euthanasia the Belgian media is incredibly critical of those people. Tom gave an interview and spoke with a journalist from the New Yorker, for an extended piece, and they quoted and referred to the very hostile approach of the national media in Belgium, and the following day there was negative coverage of the New Yorker article in Belgium. It just seems that there is an unwillingness in Belgium to scrutinize this practice, to really ask what is going on. When you have soaring rates, when you have the numbers of people who are being euthanized going up every year, so that in one region of Belgium you now have a 2% chance of being killed by your doctor; an expansion in the categories and types of people being invited to consider this as an option.

The Portuguese manifesto for legalizing euthanasia defines it as “the reply to an informed, conscious and repeated request to hasten or abbreviate the death of patients in great pain and with no hope for a cure”. In your experience, does this fit the practice of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the only European countries where the practice is legal?

This sounds like very similar language to the legislation that we have seen elsewhere; the legislation which has led to A) An increase in the number of euthanasia deaths every year and B) A widening of categories of people who are able to access it. It is a pattern we have seen before, a pattern we have seen in Belgium, whereby the arguments made at the time the legislation is introduced is “this will be exception rather than the rule”, “only in truly exceptional cases will this be allowed” and “only under very tight safeguards will this be possible”. What we see in practice is, of course, the exact opposite and I would encourage any country which is considering this, be it Portugal or elsewhere, to look to the real life examples we have of what happens when euthanasia is legalised. 

You look to Belgium and you see the numbers go up, you see troubling cases in the media, you see the categories of people, whether children or dementia patients, expanded; and it is not a path that is very attractive anywhere.

Dr. Distelmans

Defenders of euthanasia often speak of a right to death with dignity. In your opinion has the legalization of Euthanasia brought more dignity to patients in Belgium?

I think we have to get away from this idea, this image of the velvet pillow death, in which somebody dies in a comfortable room, surrounded by their family. Because that is not what happened in this case and it is not what happened in cases we heard about. In this case a woman who was depressed, was able to go, after relatively few consultations, after a relatively short period of time, to be euthanised without the knowlege of her son. Despite this feeling of distance between her and her son being part of the reason for the occurence of the depression.

So we have to get away from this image. There are only a small number of countries in the World that have legalised euthanasia, and they have drawn criticism from UN monitoring bodies for their failure to safeguard vulnerable people, the ECHR has upheld laws which prohibit euthanasia in a number of countries because the ECHR and the UN bodies I have mentioned recognize that countries have an obligation to protect a right to life. There is no right to death under the European Convention of Human Rights, or under other International instruments. 

There are also stories of elderly people moving to Germany, where Euthanasia is illegal, out of fear of being euthanized against their will. Are these credible?

There are stories, and there are certainly people who have relayed fears to us. The UK, for instance, voted on this last year and the House of Commons rejected legalisation mainly out of these concerns. And if you look at the situation in the UK, every major disability rights group or advocacy group for the disabled, opposed the legalisation of Assisted Suicide, for that simple reason, because they recognized the sometimes explicit pressure that the disabled or elderly can come under, but if its not explicit, the implicit pressure. What does it say about the type of society that we want to live in? Because that's the real question here. What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society that responds to terrible suffering with death, or do we want to live in a society that responds to terrible suffering with treatment, care and compassion?

It sometimes seems that only Christians, and more specifically Catholics are campaigning against legal Euthanasia. Is this the case?

That is not our experience. We have seen a huge number of people, from across political, religious and areligious spectrum who have engaged in this. As I mentioned, in the UK in the run-up to the debate some of the loudest voices came from the disability rights groups who campaigned very strongly against the legalization of assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, because they have a very real fear that this kind of legislation leads to the slippery slope that we have seen Belgium fall down.

We have seen people with no religious belief recognize that this exposes vulnerable people to serious danger and Tom is a great example of that. Tom is not a Catholic, he is not a believer in that sense, but he recognizes that what has happened to his mother is wrong, but it also has much broader consequences for the countries he lives in and even beyond the borders, consequences for other countries. So I would encourage people to look to Tom's story, look to other stories from the countries that have gone down this path. They paint a unified picture and it is a very bleak future indeed.

Has Euthanasia brought dignity to the sick in Holland? Not at all

This is a full transcript, in the original English, of my recent interview with Esme Wiegman about euthanasia in Holland. The news report, in Portuguese, can be read here.

Esta é uma transcrição completa, no inglês original, da minha recente entrevista com Esme Wiegman sobre a eutanásia na Holanda. A reportagem pode ser lida aqui.

What exactly is the Dutch Patient’s Association, and what is your position?

We are a Christian pro-life organization with 58 thousand members. We focus on medical-ethical issues but we are also an organization which gives free help to people who need care in their home situations.

I was a member of the Dutch Parliament for five and a half years and spokeswoman for medical and ethical issues.

Could you explain to us exactly what the law in the Netherlands is concerning Euthanasia?

What the law actually says is also not clear for many people in the Netherlands. Euthanasia is actually still forbidden, but for doctors there are criteria to follow which can exclude them from punishment in cases of euthanasia. That is what the law says, but lots of people in the Netherlands and in all of Europe think that people in the Netherlands have a right to Euthanasia, but that is not what the law actually says.

In practice, however, is that what happens? Or is it as if euthanasia has been fully legalised?

In practice people think they have the right to euthanasia and when they ask for it doctors have to explain to them exactly what the law says. One of the criteria is about unbearable suffering. But what is unbearable suffering? When the law began in 2002, everybody was thinking that pain was the most important reason for euthanasia, patients with terminal illnesses or suffering from cancer. But nowadays loss of dignity is also a reason many people ask for euthanasia. 

Sometimes doctors say that this is also a form of unbearable suffering, and that they will give euthanasia, and last Monday we saw a case on Dutch television about people who were suffering from dementia and who asked for euthanasia, or, rather, the family asked for euthanasia and it was given. 

So there are cases in Holland where people are being euthanized at the request of the family and not their own request?

Well, they say it was her own request from some years ago, written, but is it really clear that a request from years ago is still valid now? We don't know. But some doctor says that he knows the patient and we can euthanize her.

The Portuguese manifesto for legalizing Euthanasia defines Euthanasia as “the reply to an informed, conscious and repeated request to hasten or abbreviate the death of patients in great pain and with no hope for a cure”. In your experience, does this fit the practice of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the only European countries where the practice is legal?

No, I am afraid it is not. 

Because the criteria in our law are very wide. Exactly how wide they are was visible on television last Monday. What exactly is unbearable suffering? It was better when our law spoke only about terminally ill patients, that was clear, but the criteria now is very open and very wide. 

Defenders of Euthanasia often speak of a right to death with dignity. Has the legalization of Euthanasia brought more dignity to patients in Holland?

Not at all. 

I am also in favour of dying with dignity, but by that I mean good palliative care. So the word dignity is very misleading in a debate. The right of dying with dignity says something about the standard of good care and good palliative care, but not about a right to euthanasia.

Proponents of Euthanasia insist that it should be a last resort for the desperate and always speak only of voluntary euthanasia. Yet in the countries where it is legal we see repeated calls to expand the law and make it available for psychiatric patients, children and even for people who are not even sick but just “tired of living”…Is it realistic to speak of euthanasia only in these terms?

No I don't. Because what exactly is voluntary?

Patients are always patients with a context? What is their complete situation? Not only of their personal health but also family, the places where they live, it is more complex than only being your own voluntary will.

The context of patients is very important.

There are also stories of elderly people moving to Germany, where Euthanasia is illegal, out of fear of being euthanized against their will. Are these credible?

I am not familiar with them, but I don't think they are realistic. I am worried about our laws, but I am not worried about situations where people are forced to having euthanasia. 

But I am worried about what all this tells us about our opinion of elderly people. Because elderly people can suffer in life because of loss of family and because they feel life has become meaningless. I think that is a problem in the Netherlands, but our answer should not be euthanasia, but thinking how to treat those people, what can we give them that might make their life still meaningful?

Is there also a danger that people will ask for euthanasia not because they want to die, but because they don't want to be a burden to their families?

I think that is a very realistic scenario, and people may not use these words, but I think it is realistic. Elderly people might think they do not want to be a burden, but they also think of loss of dignity and significance. That is a problem. They don't want to be a burden but they also do not want to get help because they equate this with a loss of dignity. 

Is euthanasia still a difficult topic in Holland? Or is everybody fine with it?

I think last Monday what we saw on television made lots of people angry. Some said we shouldn't show euthanasia on television, but others said that the answer for this woman suffering from dementia...

It is not only pro-life Christians who are against euthanasia and are speaking out now, but also people who work in healthcare and are asking if this is what we need in our society. So yes, there are critics, but a majority in the country say that the law is ok, and also that if people want euthanasia, who are they to say no?