September 8, 2024
Letter to Public Prosecutor on Milou’s Euthanasia – ‘Disgrace to Profession’
‘Letter to Public Prosecutor on Milou’s Euthanasia is a Disgrace to Profession’ writes Johan Legemaate, emeritus professor of health law at Amsterdam UMC and the University of Amsterdam.
The euthanasia of a 17-year-old due to severe mental suffering may cause a heated debate.
But the healthcare professionals who wrote to the OM, without knowledge of the file or contact with those involved, requesting a criminal investigation, were completely out of line.
Euthanasia based on psychological suffering was already possible, and practised, before the Euthanasia Act came into force in 2002.
Yet within psychiatry, this option has always remained controversial.
The recent death of 17-year-old Milou by euthanasia, due to severe psychological suffering, led to a heated debate in recent months.
The regional euthanasia review committee ruled that the legal requirements had been met in Milou’s case, but that did not stop a group of 14 care providers, led by psychiatrist Wilbert van Rooij, from writing to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) to request a criminal investigation into the psychiatrist involved in Milou’s euthanasia and Milou’s parents.
Huge misstep
That psychiatrists or other healthcare providers express their concerns about certain developments and want to initiate a professional or social debate about them is, of course, nothing wrong with that. But the aforementioned letter is a huge misstep.
It is completely contrary to prevailing professional standards for a healthcare provider, who is subject to disciplinary law, to make statements or make imputations about individuals without knowing the file or having spoken to those involved.
In that light, the letter to the prosecution is an extremely reprehensible action.
Most letter writers have still not made themselves known so far.
Those who did, and in particular renowned psychiatry professors Damiaan Denys and Jim van Os, were and have been given every opportunity to make their points in the media in recent weeks.
The result was a mishmash of in itself understandable concerns, misinformation about the intention or content of the Euthanasia Act (as State Secretary Vincent Karremans also informed the House), trivialisation of the content of the letter to the OM and bold statements.
For example, Van Os had it recorded in Trouw :
‘What began as a means of providing humane bereavement counseling, threatens to degenerate into a way of driving young people who do not fit into neo-liberal society into death.’
Yes, it really says so!
Horrible consequences
The media should be aware that by giving the letter writers a stage, there have been terrible consequences for Milou’s parents.
A backstory in the Volkskrant of 2 August is one of the few places where they got a chance to speak.
On both occasions when I had the privilege of being part of the Dutch Psychiatric Association’s guideline committee on euthanasia in psychiatry (in 1998 and 2018), we did talk about the issue a bit more carefully than these letter writers did to the OM and in their media statements afterwards.
I hope that after the commotion of recent times, the profession finds a way to do that again.
And not as a ‘get-together’ within the profession, but in conjunction with the public discussion.
It would show guts if all the signatories of the letter to the OM finally made themselves known, at least to Milou’s parents.
As long as the letter is not withdrawn, it is a disgrace to the profession and a great injustice, including to Milou’s parents.
As long as this letter is on the table, a proper discussion on the future of professional and societal standardisation of euthanasia on the grounds of psychological suffering is not really possible.