By: Moja Dolenjska
Media outlets around the world reported that Prince Al-Waleed of the Saudi royal family recently died at the age of 36. Twenty years ago, as a teenager, he was involved in a serious car accident and suffered severe brain injuries. Since then, he had been in a coma and, in fact, never truly woke up again. Upon hearing this news, some might wonder why he was kept in a vegetative state for twenty years and not definitively “put to sleep” shortly after the accident. But the Saudi royal family held great hope that he would recover, even if very slowly.
Two decades ago, I was the only journalist present at a consultation of the Government Office for Religious Communities on medical ethics. The lecture was given by the now late academic Dr Jože Trontelj, at the time undoubtedly one of the leading authorities in the field of ethics. I no longer recall exactly what he lectured about, but I did ask him a question afterwards regarding the treatment of people in comas, specifically, when it is permissible to “pull the plug,” as the phrase goes. Professor Trontelj explained that this is allowed only when irreversible brain death has occurred, something that can also be detected with instruments that measure brain activity. Only then can it be concluded that the person is truly dead, that there is no longer any hope, and that there is no need to “artificially maintain” them. A year ago, my own relative (younger than me) was disconnected in such a way, after suffering a severe stroke.
Clearly, such an act cannot be considered euthanasia. Yet there are well-known cases around the world where patients were prematurely sent to their deaths, even though there was still hope. In Slovenia, too, we had such a case. Many will remember (almost a decade ago) little Neža, whom doctors had written off and condemned to die, but whose parents sent her to Italy for treatment. She survived and recovered. If the logic of our progressivists, the modern-day Mengeles and Kevorkians, had been followed, she would now be in the grave. And even if she had truly been incurably ill, with no hope of help, she would still have deserved a dignified remainder of life. For such cases there is today palliative care, developed in the late 1960s in Britain by nurse Cicely Saunders. And no, this does not mean “stuffing” patients with morphine – quite the opposite. It is about enabling patients to live out the rest of their lives with quality and as little pain as possible. That is what hospices provide. Also, in Slovenia.
You may have noticed that just a few years ago, palliative care was publicly discussed. In the meantime, however, this debate has completely disappeared, from the media as well as official institutions. This is no coincidence. By pushing palliative care into taboo territory, many people come to think it does not exist, which makes it easier to push them toward euthanasia. Because the authorities serve them only part of the truth, while keeping silent about the many dangers.
The current Slovenian ruling elite has therefore set about the “final solution to the pensioners’ question.” Instead of palliative care and pension reform, we have been forced into euthanasia; instead of long-term care, we got it only on paper, at a hefty price, of course. Tabloid media applauded Prime Minister Golob when, just one day before the passing of the infamous law, he visited a retirement home and one of the residents did not immediately recognise him, while he flattered her. Did she also end up on the list for the fatal injection? Who knows. What is clear is that Golob’s coalition, through emotional manipulation, is carrying out a monstrous deception and, via euthanasia, is selling us a dangerous pig in a poke. This is an attack on life, on human dignity, on all ethics, and also on doctors who resist it.
