Don’t Go To The ‘Doctor’!

Stream: When a ‘Doctor’ is No Longer a Doctor

Meanwhile, somewhere in the Netherlands…

“Mommy?”

“Susie, is that you? Aren’t you at school? Is something wrong?”

“No, Mommy. I cut my finger. Hold on, the nurse wants to talk to you.”

“Mrs Verstandig? This is the school nurse. I don’t want you to worry, but little Susie cut her finger in gym. It’s nothing serious, but it looks like it needs a couple of stitches. I could take her to the doctor if you like.”

No! Not that! Please don’t take my baby to the doctor!

Executions

Executioners in the Netherlands put 7,254 to death in 2015. They did it in a funny way, too.

Each executioner first donned a white lab coat, perhaps to symbolize the purity of his actions, and then draped a stethoscope around his neck, perhaps to use to check the success of his work. He then sidled up to his “case” and whispered, “Hi, I’m your doctor.”

And then he killed.

The official execution report wasn’t entirely clear, but it looks like the preferred procedure was injecting lethal chemicals into the victims’ veins. The report didn’t indicate if other, livelier methods, like garroting or chasing off a cliff, were ever used. So we don’t know if there was a sense of sport in any executioner’s mind.

When is a doctor no longer a doctor?

What’s funny about the whole thing is not that the executioners called themselves “doctors”, but that the victims and authorities also recognized the executioners as doctors. Doctors. As in, physicians, i.e. those learned in the art of treating illness.

I’m old enough to remember when a doctor was a person who tried to cure his patients, not kill them. That’s being forgotten in countries like Holland, Belgium, and here in the once United States.

But I should watch what I say, because advanced age may be one of the “symptoms” that require involuntary euthanasia. According to the official report, there were in 2015 in the Netherlands 6,672 euthanasia deaths and 150 assisted suicide deaths.

There were also 431 “termination of life without request” deaths.

Make it look like an accident

For those who might not have been paying sufficient attention, let me repeat that. Terminations of life without request.

“Doc, this hangnail has really been bothering me. Can you do anything about it?”

“Hmm. When you say ‘bothering’, do you mean mental distress?”

“Well, I guess—hey! What’d you do!”

“Just relax, Mr De Jong. I’ve treated you with the latest method. Nurse? Could you get me another form for termination of life without request?”

Don’t you dare complain, dear reader. What do you think you are, a doctor or something? These are experts. They know more than we do about the care and treatments of illnesses. They are certified in their expertness by august universities and by the greatest power there is, the government.

[…]

If they still let you, click here to read the rest.

15 Comments

  1. In socialized medicine the doctor doesn’t work for you but for the state. When the state considers your usefulness ended, you’re gone.

  2. Wishfull thinking, I am afraid, that a doctor will kill the spoiled brats that are supposed to be the hope of Holland.

    Current situation is that people can ask for euthanasia if they are terminally ill. The discussion is whether people who do not want to live anymore should be legally allowed to ask for euthanasia as well

    As the Leftish but Christian ChristenUnie party is needed for the next coalition, I do not expect this to become law the next couple of years.

  3. As an 87 year old, with maybe 10 more years of life expectancy (based on death ages of uncles and father), I am particularly afraid of “” proposals. As Dylan Thomas said,

    “do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

  4. Briggs,

    you really don’t like when people are free to choose for themselves what happen to them.

    You are against abortion and yet when they are alive people have no right to health care.

    You have also no problem prolonging the suffering of people who have no hope of getting a better life.

  5. CONSIDER: “There were also 431 “termination of life without request” deaths. ..
    For those who might not have been paying sufficient attention, let me repeat that. Terminations of life without request.”

    How bad is that, really…what’s the context?

    Sure appears bad…however…the audit portion of the report indicates only four euthanizations were dubious and warranting further investigation (the more recent report indicates much more total euthanizations with only 10 being questionable). With well over 7200 events, having only 4 (or 10) that appear to have violated the rules suggests a VERY ADMIRABLE oversight/compliance rate.

    Think what one will of the legality of the rules, that the participants are staying well within bounds of the rules is encouraging — and would seem to contradict the asserted slide down the slippery slope (see the content via the “…read the rest” link).

    Since our statistician didn’t present a rebuttal to such, didn’t actually analyze the figures & their real implications, the resulting implication is that the immediately above is true (a rebuttal wasn’t offered because it couldn’t be rebutted).

    Superficially, one is inclined to read the sensationalism and be alarmed, but alarm quickly gives way to cautious optimism that things really are in good shape … rendering the essay a histrionic tirade that boils down to, “They legalized it, they’re doing it, OhMY!” Its a good example of how trying to influence others can backfire. In doctor-speak that’s described as, ‘first do no harm.’

    Euthanasia is a curious special case where inflicting the ultimate harm, death, is perceived as an ultimate remedy. Perhaps someone would like to take the challenge to argue for/against euthanasia in that context as that’s one anchor that somewhat limits the side-stepping and rationalizations so intimately woven into nearly all positions on the subject.

  6. Sylvain —

    “You have also no problem prolonging the suffering of people who have no hope of getting a better life.”

    Yet you advocate for socialism — Viva la Venezuela!

  7. Jim,

    Why am I not surprised to see you lying about my point of view.

    There is very little difference between capitalism (as practiced in the USA in the late 1800s and communism. In both cases, the workers have no liberties. In both cases, the power of the government protect a small elite.

    On a compass the needle points to 0.1° for capitalism and 359.9° for communism. The ideal is a mixed of both system where the needle points to 180°

    American are a lot less free than they think. You have no idea how little I think or have to deal with the government Even if my business is in an heavily regulated sector, the biggest threat I face is from an overbearing landlord who imposes more rules and expenses than any government agencies I have ever faced. Like forcing me to buy 360$ of paint (4 gallons at 90$ each) because they chose a colour that is only available on special order. I only needed less than a pint. Or to invest in a 5000$ illuminated signs. When the city counsel was happy to authorize a sign that cost 250$.

    BTW, the landlord the capitalist complains about municipal regulation that are much less invasive than his own regulations.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *