Belgian Health Fund Chair Proposes ‘Voluntary’ Elderly Euthanasia

I'm sure it'll be 'voluntary'! Just think of how much the insurance companies will save on nursing homes if all the elderly commit suicide.

From The European Conservative

By Tristan Vanheuckelom

Cost-cutting concealed as concern for elderly 'quality of life'

Facing rising costs of care for the elderly, Luc Van Gorp, the chairman of the largest Belgian health insurance fund, ‘Christelijke Mutualiteit’ (Christian Mutual Insurance), is proposing euthanasia as a money-saving solution.

Currently ‘unbearable suffering’  is a prerequisite under Belgian law for granting a euthanasia request. Moving forward, Van Gorp wants people to be able to signal that their lives “are done with” to get state assistance with dying.

The head of the—now Christian-in-name-only—health insurance fund made the remarks during an interview published Monday, April 8th in Het Nieuwsblad.

“We have to remove the stigma between life and death,” he said, adding that he sought to foster open debate on aging and the elderly’s quality of life.

I have never understood why we always debate the quantity of life. We want people to get as old as possible, we do everything to accomplish this. But we never ask the question of how quantity relates to quality of life.

“This debate needs to be placed high on the political agenda,” Van Gorp stressed. “As a society we are going to have to consider how to organize that care [for the elderly] in the future, knowing that we are short on hands already today.”

The chairman referred to a recent in-house study, which looked at the profiles of members of his health insurance fund and claims to show that an aging population will be a major challenge for Belgium in the future.

By 2050, the number of people over 80 will double, the study states—an increase from 640,000 people who are over 80 today to 1.2 million in 25 years.

“How are we going to prepare for that?,” Van Gorp asked rhetorically. “Not by building mass residential care centers if they won’t contribute to quality of life. If we are not going to be able to sustain the mass of people who need care, how are we going to engage in a talk with them?” he added.

Van Gorp went on. “Even if there is no unbearable suffering or poor quality of life, people who are tired of life should have the freedom to end their lives. What if the quality of care is perfect, but the person still does not experience quality of life? What do you do then, when there are still people who indicate that they are done with life?”

Choosing death out of guilt

According to Van Gorp, an attitudinal change needs to happen. “We have to remove the stigma between life and death. Not through harsh euthanasia, because that scares people away. But by allowing people to indicate that it [their life] has been good [and that it can end now].”

According to Van Gorp, that debate needs to happen urgently, and in society as a whole, not just within the healthcare industry. “Because to be clear: this is not a medical debate. A life completed doesn’t have to be a negative concept if it is discussed in a safe way, but today we are often still too afraid to talk about it,” he says. 

To buttress his sinister arguments, Van Gorp said “Ten percent of elderly people struggle with depression or complaints of being tired of life.”

Chairman of the Christian, Democrat, and Flemish (CD&V) party Sammy Mahdi—rightly—posited that “when someone is tired of life and feels like being a burden or is not getting any more visitors, aren’t we then simply failing as a society?”

“Many elderly feel like they are a burden,” he added. 

The answer to that is not euthanasia … The answer to that is just more respect for our elders. And giving families more time to be there for their parents and grandparents.”

The Greens feel that “this kind of choice should never be borne of economic considerations. However, when people themselves indicate that they have a desire to die when they are of old age, we believe that they should be able to choose for this in a dignified manner and should receive much better guidance,” according to their co-chairman Jeremie Vaneeckhout. 

The rightist Vlaams Belang criticized Van Gorp for having sent “a wrong signal.” Euthanasia is “literally a matter of life or death. It should always be handled with extreme care,” a party spokesman said.

Canon lawyer and media commentator Rik Torfs referred to it being “a terrible thought, all those ‘superfluous’ people whom no one will miss.”

In a later tweet, Torfs added that, while he agreed we “should not avoid any discussion,” he pondered whether there would “come a time when society, based on rational arguments imbued with merit by an ethical committee, decides that [whether certain people should die] in their place?”

In Canada’s footsteps?

Indeed, Van Gorp’s remarks sound like the preparatory work to launching a Belgian version of Canada’s controversial MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) program, which passed into law in 2016. 

Under that euthanasia law—the world’s most liberal—one does “not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying,” making it, some argue, far too easy to access.

As previously reported by The European Conservative, in a bid to save money and ease the burden on medical staff, such schemes perversely incentivize health professionals to actively seek out whoever might be eligible for that ‘treatment’ and promote it to them. 

Last year, Canada registered a 34% increase in people opting to end their lives, setting a sad new record for the country. 

The Belgian federal government is mired in a discussion over whether the country’s euthanasia law should be extended to apply to people with advanced dementia. Currently, only patients who are still of relatively sound mind, and thus able to make a decision, are eligible for such a procedure.

While initially strongly opposed to extending the law to those with advanced dementia, in a recent interview, CD&V’s chairman said his party would be willing to consider the law’s further liberalization, but only if it is handled “most thoroughly and seriously.”

As Torfs says correctly, no debates should be avoided, but Van Gorp’s timing is potentially unwelcome. With June’s high-stakes elections fast approaching, it is highly unlikely Belgium’s ruling parties will want to kickstart a heated public debate on granting euthanasia to the ‘willing’ elderly. Nevertheless, Van Gorp’s bleak message signals where certain nihilistic organizations are taking us.