Self-delusion is rampant in the euthanasia movement. Most proponents recognize that it is inherently dangerous to legalize killing. But they desperately want to believe that they can control the grim reaper. Thus, they continue to peddle the nonsense that "guidelines will protect against abuse" despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
What's not in a name is the question du jour at single-issue advocacy groups. First the venerable National Abortion Rights Action League (or National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League in recent years) officially dropped abortion from its name and became "NARAL Pro-Choice America."
In this excerpt from his newly revised book, "Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder", Wesley J. Smith analyses an article published in the New York Times Magazine and exposes some of the many ways in which journalists lead the public to a false understanding of the euthanasia issue.
Previously, because euthanasia was prohibited in the Penal Code, the physician had to prove that he/she had fulfilled the requirements. Under the new arrangements, the Public Prosecutor has to prove that the physician has not fulfilled the requirements, in order to start prosecution. This is a significant shift.