European Court Of Human Rights Takes On Major Case That May Enshrine Euthanasia Into International Law

Eugenics is sometimes associated with the rise of National Socialist Germany during the 20th century. While this is certainly true, this was only one small incident in the larger scale of events. What transpired in Germany began in the UK and US with the promotion of eugenic policies dating back to as early as the 17th century, and it was the American sterilization and eugenics programs against people deemed “inferior” in the US that was the direct basis for the National Socialist program. Eugenics has also continued following World War II with the contraception and abortion programs, directed at eliminating “undesirables” as much as conducting experiments in the name of “science” through a series of “think tanks,” universities, and government institutions working with private sector businesses. has written about the eugenic experimentation and ideas promoted by groups such as the Max Planck Institute of Germany, and of the abuse of children with Down’s Syndrome in said programs as but a few of many examples. While these things are “permitted” on a national scale, there is no “international” law or standard regulating them. However, this may change with a case coming before the European Court of Human Rights over a man whose mother was euthanized by her doctor without his knowledge:

The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to take on the legal case of a man who objects to the fact that his mother was euthanized in 2012 after years of depression.

The ECHR, based in Strasbourg, France, will consider the case brought forward by Belgium resident Tom Mortier.

According to Mortier, his mother — Godelieva De Troyer — was 64 years old when she was given a lethal injection by a doctor simply because she couldn’t bear her depression. Mortier maintains that doctors and hospital staff didn’t provide notice to him or his siblings until a day after their mother had died.

Alliance Defending Freedom International, which has filed an application to represent Mortier, explains that Mortier’s case is eligible to be heard by the continent’s top human rights court because Belgian authorities have refused to pursue his case.

According to Mortier, his mother had severe mental health problems and dealt with depression throughout much of her life. As she was treated by psychiatrists, Mortier admits that contact between himself and his mother had been broken until years later when he found out that his mother had been euthanized.

“International law has never established a so-called ‘right to die.’ On the contrary, it solidly affirms the right to life — particularly for the most vulnerable among us,” ADF International Director of European Advocacy Robert Clarke, who is handling Mortier’s case, said in a statement. “We welcome the decision of the court to hear this precedent-setting case, the sad facts of which expose the lie that euthanasia is good for society.”

The appeal to the European Court of Human Rights represents the son’s only chance to seek justice for the loss of his mother, according to ADF.

The plaintiff alleges that when De Troyer’s doctor of 20 years refused to approve her euthanasia request in September 2011, she sought the help of other physicians.

One of those physicians was allegedly Dr. Wim Distelmans, who co-chairs Belgium’s euthanasia review commission.

According to a court statement, Mortier alleges that his mother donated the equivalent of $2,860 to a foundation that Distelmans co-founded called the Life End Information Forum before her euthanasia request was carried out.

“The donation gives rise to an apparent conflict of interest,” ADF argued. “No one contacted Mortier before his mother’s death even though, Mortier says, her depression was not only largely the result of a break-up with a man, but also due to her feelings of distance from her family.”

Psychiatrist Lieve Thienpont was ultimately the one responsible for authorizing De Troyer’s euthanasia request.

Theinpont has been plagued by previous concerns that she is too quick to approve euthanasia for mentally ill patients. Theinpont and two other doctors were investigated last year on claims that they were involved in the euthanization of a woman named Tine Nys, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, in 2010.

Nys’ family contends, however, that she wasn’t on the autistic spectrum but just suffering “over a recent breakup with her boyfriend.”

According to the Associated Press, some experts think Theinpont may have been involved in as many as one-third of Belgian euthanasia cases approved for psychiatric reasons.

Religious leaders, such as those with the Roman Catholic Church, have contended that Belgium’s euthanasia law is being abused and that patients are being killed without proper legal checks in place.

Supporters of Mortier’s case believe its impact could span throughout Europe as euthanasia is also legal in countries like the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

“The slippery slope is on full public display in Belgium, and we see the tragic consequences in this case,” ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman said in a statement. “According to the most recent government report, more than six people per day are killed in this way, and that may yet be the tip of the iceberg. The figures expose the truth that, once these laws are passed, the impact of euthanasia cannot be controlled.”

Coleman stated that Belgium is on a trajectory that “implicitly tells its most vulnerable that their lives are not worth living.”

Another case of a patient being euthanized for mental health reasons is a 41-year-old man in the Netherlands who was euthanized because he was an alcoholic who suffered from depression and anxiety.

Reports indicate that over 10,000 people have been euthanized in Belgium in the 15 years since the practice became legal in 2002. Most of those cases involve a physical illness, rather than mental. Only one case was previously referred to prosecutors; that case was later dropped. (source, source)

I am not as optimistic about this case because given the increase in nationalism and populism, combined with the fact that eugenics has never disappeared but has only grown stronger in recent days, having been “justified” in the mind of the public by the manufactured “refugee crisis” and the inherently biased arguments about “IQ,” there is a distinct chance that this case may not be used to abolish eugenics, but to give it legal recognition and “standards” that result in its legitimization.

Given the nature of the case, it has the potential to be similar to the case of Buck vs. Bell in the US, in which the US Supreme Court allowed for the sterilization of people determined to be “unfit” for society. If any sort of “sterilization” or other eugenic measures were deemed to be permitted under “international law,” it would provide a standard for all nations to legalize eugenics under their own national laws. This would move towards the worldwide legalization of murdering people determined to be “undesirable” for a society.

This case will have to be watched closely, for not only does it have the potential to give permission to what the National Socialists and Japanese imperialists did almost a century ago, but to go even further by giving their crimes a legal cover they did not even possess in their own time.

Eugenics never went away. It is not merely back now, but back with a vengeance and will be even more destructive than in the past.