Contra Mundum Essay Collection: Thomas Schirrmacher


Human Rights Threatened in Europe - The Euthanasia - Abortion - Bioethics - Convention

Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher


Thomas Schirrmacher received his Doctorate in Theology (1985, Netherlands) in Cultural Anthropology (1989, USA) and in Ethics (1996, USA) as well as a honorary doctorate (1997, USA). He is Professor of Ethics at several American seminaries and Rector of Martin Bucer Seminary in Bonn, where he lives.
   

1 Three remarkable Trends

The convergence of the European Right-to-Life Movement has become increasingly essential. Since substantial powers of jurisdiction on these matters have been transferred to the European level, European institutions require an appropriate counterpart. Having originated with civic action, the Right-to-Life Movement still acts primarily on the local level, and should continue to do so. Where else can a woman find counsel and assistance for an unwanted pregnancy or for the emotional consequences of an abortion, just to mention one example? At the same time, the movement must offer European legislators a united front. This forum is the right step in that direction.

The Right-to-Life Movement has always considered itself a human rights movement, for it represents above all the rights of those who cannot represent themselves, originally unborn children, but social and medical developments have advanced, creating new victims: the elderly, the infirm and the disabled, as well as embryos and patients. In this context, I would like to call attention to three trends significant for all Right-to-Life organizations in Europe.

1.1 Right to Life problems merge

The issues facing the Right-to-Life Movement have begun to merge. Genetic technology allows genetic analysis, which is used in prenatal diagnosis to determine which children may be aborted and which may be born. Euthanasia (the practice of killing for reasons of mercy) occurs not only at the end of life, but also at its beginning, when newborns are left to die. The so-called Bioethics Convention implements not only research on embryos, but also genetic research on adults unable to decide for themselves, who can be used only because they don’t understand what is happening to them. At the moment, the respect for human life is particularly threatened at the beginning of human life -- by abortion before birth -- and at its end by euthanasia. The fluid transition between abortion and euthanasia is quite visible when judges show increasing sympathy for parents who kill their living disabled children: the news magazine Focus recently titled an article, “Euthanasia: in the Name of Sympathy: A woman who has killed her disabled child finds mild judges, but little sympathy from the disabled,“1 for the woman was given a six-month sentence on probation -- no penalty at all.

In 1982, a British study discovered that euthanasia on newborns was already common practice, although no one admitted it publicly.2 British doctors also consider the extent of the right to abortion to include the time after birth,3 according to a medical journal of 1987: “The British Medical Association had now reformed its 17 year old euthanasia policies,4 although it declared active mercy killing illegal, it considered the decision justified not to prolong life in certain cases, such as a malformed child.“5
   

1.2 Illegal but justified?

Only a small percentage of a country’s population orients itself towards values different from those of national or international law. Some may apply Christian ethics to their everyday lives or do without cars or electricity out of concerns for the sake of conservation, but the majority of the population orients itself simply towards the laws of the state6, particularly penal law and judicial decisions. In Europe, the state’s influence has particularly increased with the Church’s loss of influence on the younger generation. Few parents try to give their children moral values above and beyond the consensus of their society, either because they themselves have none or because they feel incapable. Why do most Europeans have no problem with pornography, even in its most disgusting forms, but find child pornography detestable and wish to have it punished? Simply because this is the legal situation in most European countries!

In this situation, we experience an increasing schizophrenia, in which actions which infringe against the right to life are considered wrong and illegal, but are still permitted, encouraged and financially supported. Dutch law still regards mercy killing homicide and wrong, but neither registers nor penalizes it; the patient or the doctor are considered to have a right to take things into their own hands!

German law is no different in its attitude towards prenatal homicide, which is legally killing and wrong, but is practically never penalized; society leaves the right to decide up to the mother. The judge Bernward Büchner, chairman of the Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht (Lawyers’ Society on the Right to Life) assumes that this inconsistency will have serious consequences for our system of rule by law and for our legal consciousness.7

The question is, what hollows out the integrity of law more: the open announcement that children and the infirm no longer have a life worth living, or laws which declare the deliberate ending of innocent life to be homicide, but refuse to penalize it, defend the right to such homicide, and even encourage the State to support such slayings financially. The latter is much more dangerous, for it encourages the attitude that even the most serious human crime, the murder of an innocent person, can be ignored. At the end of the day, any form of deliberate homicide might be condemned but not penalized. Judicial decisions in Europe tend to find increasing sympathy for all sorts of killing -- including obvious murder, and to reduce the severity of the penalty until it is completely innocuous. To declare a form of killing illegal, but to permit it, regulate it and encourage it reduces the borders between right and crime to an unrecognizable state.8

The population, which orients itself towards penal law and judicial decisions, thus learns not only that abortion and euthanasia are permissible, but also that even the most important legal issues depend on inclination, that there is no real distinction between legality and illegality, between right and wrong or good and evil. This development is emphasized by the fact that all our present right to life problems began when courts ceased penalizing cases of abortion and euthanasia etc. clearly condemned by law,9 thus indicating that even indisputable laws can be ignored.
   

1.3 Human Rights, the Magic Word

In order to understand why illegal acts increasingly remain unpenalized and are even declared civil rights, we must examine the debate over human rights. The lawyer and human rights expert, John Warwick Montgomery, has noted that nowadays, everything can be packaged and sold as a human rights issue, so that the very idea of human rights loses its potency.10 ‘Pro-Familia’, for example, derives the right to abortion from the right to family planning,11 a clear example of the way the magic word ‘human rights’ can be used to justify the killing of innocent human beings. Josef Punt writes, “From aid for victims of catastrophes to euthanasia and abortion as the right of disposal over one’s body, any supposedly humane act or any individual need can be clothed in the demands of human rights.“12

If cannibalism or human sacrifice had a lobby nowadays, they would probably attempt to exploit the human rights idea. 13 The most central human right to life and liberty, Article 3 of the General Declaration on Human Rights of the UNO, 1948, is being sacrificed to other rights, or supposed rights, which would be better defined as wishes. Consider for example the right to decide on which side of the street one wishes to drive. Should this ‘right’ be declared more important than the right to preserve life?

We desperately need to remember the difference between unalterable human rights and wise but variable regulations, and to concentrate on fundamental human rights.14 It is simply not logical to fight for human rights and to combat torture, debt slavery, child abuse and the rule of law, but to dilute the most fundamental of rights, the right to life to the point that abortion, euthanasia, interference in human genetics and embryonic research become permissible.

Against this background I would like to examine the Bioethics Convention, euthanasia and prenatal killing.

2 Central Examples

2.1 The Bioethics Convention

In 1990, the Council of Europe requested the Directing Committee for Bioethics (Comitée Directeur pour la Bioéthique, CDBI) to draw up a proposal for a Convention on Bioethics.15 The proposal, which was treated as secret, was long kept under wraps until it came to the public’s attention in 1994, when it immediately released a storm of indignation. The “International Initiative of Citizens against Bioethics“ achieved initial success for the Right-to-Life Movement, which prevented the presentation of the Convention with five auxiliary protocols for signing without any public or parliamentary discussion. The proposal published by the Council of Europe in 1994 following the protests was rejected by the Parliamentary Assembly, but the Council apparently had sufficient forces to pass it in spite of massive opposition from its own ranks. Numerous delegated of European and national parliaments protested that they would not have had access to the documents without the aid of citizen’s initiatives, and that a deliberated misinformation policy had been carried out against delegates.16. Furthermore, this policy of desinformation shrouds the unbelievable amalgamation of the committees, organizations and advisors, and the research organizations and beneficiaries of greater liberties in research on the European platform.17

In May and June 1995, the Congress of the Federal Republic of Germany demanded extensive changes which summarized the essential criticism on the Bioethics proposal. The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly accepted these objections for the most part, since only immaterial alterations were made in the original formulation, the objections still apply to the version signed by most governments:

    Research on persons unable to give consent is still permissible, as long as it is serves others.
    Research on embryos is permissible.
    Since the intervention in human genetic make-up is insufficiently restricted, eugenics and genetic manipulation of human beings are still possible.
    The transmission of research results is insufficiently regulated (data security).

On June 6, 1996, a further proposal, “The Human Rights Agreement on Biomedicine“, was submitted under German protest without significant alterations.18 On November 19, 1996, it was accepted by the Ministerial Committee of the European Council at the embassy level with the abstention of Germany, Belgium and Poland. On April 4, 1997, 21 of the 40 member states of the Council of Europe signed the proposal. At the moment, 23 countries have signed, but only Slovakia has ratified it.19 (Five states must ratify before the Convention becomes effective.20) Whether Germany will sign or not is still unclear,21 but ratification appears to be out of the question, since all German states must first assent independently, not in the Upper House of Parliament,22 and the Hessian Parliament has already unanimously rejected the Bioethics Convention.23

At any rate, a massive misinformation policy has been employed, in which the translation for the German Federal Ministry of Justice24 sounds better than the binding French and English versions,25 for example. Where the original refers vaguely and legally intangibly to the “representatives“ of persons “unable to consent for themselves“, the German version refers to their “legal representatives“.26 In fact, there is still no official German translation of the Explanatory Report of the European Council on the Bioethics Convention.27

In the “Unterrichtung der Bundesregierung über den Verhandlungsstand des Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin“28 (“Federal Government Report on the Negotiations concerning the Human Rights Agreement on Biomedicine“), the German government assumes that the newer version has achieved a significant improvement over the 1994 version, but whitewashes the individual points to a great extent,29 and reads it as if it were indeed clearer and better than the former version. Germany agreed to Article 18,30 because it supposedly precludes embryonic research for commercial use, although the article only prohibits the production of embryos for such purposes. The German government still criticizes Article 36,31 under which any state may register its own reservations to any article without exception, and Article 32, Paragraph 4, which includes an unrestricted amendment: “This regulation offers problems which would cause any doubt as to the seriousness and soundness of the rights and principles guaranteed in the agreement.“

The most fundamental problem32 of the Bioethics Convention is its basic concern, the desire to syncretize the human right to life with the demands of scientific research and technical progress. It may sound as if two equally valid legal values were in conflict, but actually the most fundamental human rights (to life and dignity) contradict certain indefinite wishes and aspirations, that is the desire to further scientific progress and, at the same time, to serve mankind. Besides, Man and his personal rights are confronted by an abstract, research -- or, in the context of the German Constitution, (Basic Rights in Articles 1-3 of the Basic Law), the Right of Science, Research and Instruction (Article 5, Paragraph 3. GC), which has no power to annul any other basic rights. In this context, it should be very clear that human dignity has the priority in any legal discussion of rights and values. I know of no official document which declares scientific research a value in itself more important than human life. Our society tends to put its faith in science, but to pour this faith into a legal mold and to cement it judicially must challenge anyone differently minded. Jobst Paul writes: „The bioethical hypothesis that in principle there cannot be a value, especially human dignity, which exceeds the freedom of research leads to the demand that human dignity and the freedom of research be considered as equal rights and have to be brought to an „agreement“. The present priority of human dignity is attributed to an irrational ‘Judeo-Christian’ religiousness. A change of awareness (Bewußtseinswandel) is to be achieved by „educating“ the public awareness in this respect which then would tolerate the individual cases of violation of human dignity on the part of research.“33

According to Paul, the bending of human rights under international research is intended to „ideologically harmonize the European bioethics based on American examples.“34 This is not to indulge in cheap Anti-Americanism, but it cannot be overlooked that the almost limitless freedom and support of research in the U.S. pressures all other countries. „The U.S.-doctrin of Bioethics manipulates the term human dignity ... According to it, ‘man’ is no longer meant to primarily relate to the individual, but to ‘man’ as the representative of the species. According to the paper, research for probable use is to be considered a human right for the human species, e.g. for future generations, and the human right of the individual has to submit to it. When and for which purpose is decided by current research, of course.“35

This trend will keep increasing. Heinz Trompisch writes from an Austrian perspective: „The Bioethics Convention is nothing but a tessera of worldwide trends. I just want to mention the declaration of the UNESCO: After the European Bioethics Convention there is another danger threatening the mentally handicapped person, his human dignity and his human rights: An „International Bioethics Committee“ is preparing a ‘Declaration (which is cynically called) on the human genome and on human rights’ in the framework of UNESCO, a sub-organization of the United Nations. Here also, the preparations were made in secret.“36

In spite of the persuasive title, “Human Rights Agreement on Biomedicine“, the document offers no comprehensive protective regulations for the huge complex of biomedicine, and uses the term ‘Human Rights’ as a sort of magic formula for soothing the suspicious. The statement never defines who has which rights! Extensive areas such as euthanasia, prenatal life, artificial insemination, the brain-death issue, organ transplantation, the sale of organs, data protection, etc., etc., are completely ignored! Thus, the Central Committee of the German Catholics (Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken) does not find any protective regulations for the most basic human right, the right to life in the beginning and end (abortion and euthanasia) in the Convention.37

In the few areas covered, protective regulation is vague and insufficient -- for example, an otherwise prohibited act can be permitted in an “exceptional case“, if there is only a “minimal risk“.38 Science can always find a way around the regulations, it must only find sufficient excuses. „... the paper does not find a consistent terminology“39 especially when it comes to the threat of punishment: „Unfortunately those articles of the Convention that regulate the sanctions in case of a violation of the regulations of the Convention (chapter VIII) are very unspecific and worded imprecisely.“40

Jobst Paul finds harsh words for that, and rightly so: „In the end, over 200 years of human rights history are definitely ended with a single stroke of a pen. This history knows the impetus of the individual human rights alone as a stronghold especially against collective power in all of its documents. Nazism and the holocaust do not seem to have happened, no conclusions, no consequences in solemn human rights documents.“41

Martina Steindor, the “Green“ congresswoman, points to parallels with the ethical restrictions in Article 53b of the European Patent Agreement, which requires all patent grants to adhere to good manners. This expression is so nebulous; and its legal value is so low, that all objections have been rejected,42 even those dealing with gene technology. Peter Liese, a member of the European Parliament (CDU), points to the contrary development which will soon set in: “We still have the right to enforce stricter standards, but in reality the Convention is considered a good basis for the judgment of ethical issues in biomedicine.“43

Not even the protection offered by the Convention can be guaranteed. Each state may retain its own protective regulations, for example, Germany’s Law on the Protection of Embryos from 1.1.1990,44 but looser regulations may also be preserved, such as the British Law “Human Fertilization and Embryology Act“, 1990. Each country may also make reservations in its ratification, and, except for the European Court of Justice, no one can bring legal action on the basis of the law. The Court of Justice can only interfere on the government level and that is only an advisory function. There is no provision for an action by an organization or an individual.45 The official reasoning, that the Court would be overwhelmed by the load, is unconvincing.46 Will the future validity of human rights depend on the capacity of courts or on the finances of European bureaucracy? In the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, Rudolf Willeke writes, “A human right or a civil right, for which neither the citizen nor his legal or contracted representative has appeal to any court of law, is not worth the paper it is printed on.“47

The insufficient protection provided by the Bioethics Convention is worthless for yet another reason. The Convention leaves the definition of essential terminology, such as ‘human being’, ‘person’ or ‘every’ up to national law, apparently to make agreement possible, according to the Explanatory Report.48 Need we be surprised that the beginning of human life is left completely undecided? When central terminology is left undefined, the possibility of countless readings results. The reference to ‘professional duties’ and ‘principles of professional ethics’ is another rubber clause. What good is the Agreement, under these conditions? No one can take the thought of any uniform European or international minimum protection seriously.

Besides these fundamental weaknesses in the Convention, there are a number of individual problems:

    Embryonic research is not prohibited, only the production of embryos for commercial purposes (Art. 18), which corresponds to the legal situation in most European countries, such as England since the ‘Human Fertilization and Embryology Act’ of 1990, which permits the production and conservation of embryos for research purposes, or Italy, Spain and Belgium,49 as well as the USA. This contradicts the German law on the protection of embryos, which has, however, been strongly attacked by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft50 (German Research Society) and many scientists.51 And it is publicly ridiculed by researchers in other countries.52 The strictness of the regulation rebuts any argument that Germany should sign the Convention in order to prove that it is not opposed to protective standards.53 In fact the Bioethics Convention in the end will be used as argument to lower the German standards.54
    The Convention provides no guarantees for data protection for the results of genetic tests (Art. 12). This failure results mainly from the objections of the Swiss, under pressure from Swiss insurance companies, to a ban on the use of such results.55 The German Federal Government writes, “We could not agree whether only insurance companies or also employers should have access to the data.“56
    Interference in human genomes are not prohibited (Art. 13), as long as there is no intent to alter the genetic makeup of the offspring. This rubber clause allows too much dangerous freedom to unscrupulous researchers.
    Persons unable to decide for themselves (under German law, embryos, children, the mentally retarded, wards, people in coma -- but every state defines this term differently) may be used for research purposes under certain vague stipulations (Art 17 with Art. 6-7), and even in “exceptional cases“ (whatever that means) that do not benefit them. Tissue which can be regenerated, such as medulla (from the spinal cord) can be taken from them (Art. 20). By failing to define the patient’s representatives --even a ‘legally’ appointed committee may make the decision for him -- the statement breaks the ancient principle only ignored by dictatorships such as National Socialism, that test persons must agree freely, consciously and without any pressure to participate in such testing. This was even the opinion of a legal report of the scientific ministry of the German federal parlament (Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Deutschen Bundestags) unlike the Federal Ministry of Justice!57 And even the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council wanted to totally prohibit research done on persons unable to decide for themselves, but the Committee of Ministers (Ministerkomitee) nevertheless held on to it.58
    The weakest members of our society are thus verbally sacrificed to the needs of scientific progress -- actions will doubtlessly soon follow the words. According the ‘Nürnberg Code’ for doctors, which was created after the Third Reich, the patient must agree to any experiments carried out on him. This civil right must be retained in spite of the demands of the ‘Zentrale Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer’ (Central Ethics Commission of the Federal Medical Chamber), which are expressed in a similarly vague fashion.59
    The Supplementary Protocol on Cloning,60 which was signed by 17 of the 40 member states, prohibits cloning (“No intervention shall be carried out with the intention of creating a human being genetically identical to any other living or dead human being.“61 ), but this ban concerns only the birth of cloned humans. It forbids neither the cloning of embryos not to be carried to full term nor the cloning of separated parts of the human body for ‘spare parts depots’. Besides, the protocol defines only intentions, for it requires no penalties.62 This is exactly what for example Ian Wilmut, Dolly’s father, is planning.63
In 1962, at the Ciba Symposium in London, the American geneticist and Nobel Prize winner, Joshua Lederberg called for the complete genetic alteration of the human constitution.64 There, Hermann J. Muller also demanded a genetic control of births especially by selecting the semen, but also by cloning - without being challenged for his position. The Bioethics Convention’s opposition to this demand is extremely restrained.

One principle common to the Bioethics Convention and the increased legalization of abortion and euthanasia seems to me to have been insufficiently considered. Whereas in cases of abortion or euthanasia, society gives the doctor the power over life and death, because of his scientific training and experience, the Bioethics Convention declares the highest authority to be the scientist and the researcher, who will interfere with human dignity and even take prenatal lives for the sake of progress.
   

2.2 Euthanasia - Homicide on demand or at the doctor’s discretion?65

Let us examine the issue of euthanasia. Once killing on demand has softened the ban on active homicide, victims are soon likely to be killed without their consent -- particularly in the case of the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and the mentally disturbed -- a consequence already to be observed in the Netherlands, according to John Keown.66 The increase of violence against patients and the killing of patients by medical personnel in German hospitals67 are serious precursors of such developments. We are well on the way to reinstating the euthanasia policies of the Third Reich,68 which carried out scientist’s (!) dreams. The supporter of active euthanasia Norbert Hoerster makes the fear of the National Socialist euthanasia responsible for Germany’s lag in admitting euthanasia: „I think that it is time that the question of euthanasia is no longer tabooed in our society under the pretext of Nazi euthanasia...“69 Dietrich von Engelhard writes, “Towards the end of the 19th century, Social Darwinism played a primary role, leading to such programmatic works as Adolf Jost’s ‘Das Recht auf Tod’ (Göttingen, 189570), Elisabeth Rupp’s ‘Das Recht auf Tod’ (1913), or Karl Binding’s and Alfred Hoche’s ‘Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens71’ (Leipzig 1920)“.

The views expounded by Social Darwinism72 were proscribed for half a century, but are now being rediscovered. National Socialism’s euthanasia program was legally based on the extension of doctors’ discretion. Nowadays, doctors permit themselves to be made the motors of illegal killing, due to the extension of their accountability at the beginning of life (abortion) and at its end (euthanasia).73 The philosopher Robert Spaemann warns, “Besides, ending life on demand is only a gateway drug for the ‘de-tabooisation’ of destruction of ‘life not worth living’ -- with or without consent.“74 He refers to the “example of the Netherlands, in which one third of legalized killing -- we are talking about thousands of people -- do not die at their own request but at the discretion of doctors and family members to decide whether life is no longer livable.“75

Few European legislatures have legalized the trend towards allowing euthanasia, even though courts seldom enforce the law, and even though the “Grundsätze zur ärztlichen Sterbebegleitung“ of the Zentralen Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer76 are so vague that they have been strongly criticized by members of all political parties and lobbies.77 On the other hand, the State Court in Frankfurt recently (July 5, 1998) permitted euthanasia in a complex case, using the construction of the ‘presumed will’ of the patient, who lay in a coma, and who had once vaguely indicated that she did not wish to endure any slow death.78 Here the court has overstepped the boundary to active euthanasia, as well as to mercy killing without the patient’s consent --as is the case in the Netherlands, as we will see. The Right-to-Life Movement itself debates whether this is a case of active79 or passive80 euthanasia. When the modern English, Spanish, French or Italian speaker uses the term ‘euthanasia’ (coined by Francis Bacon in 1605 from Greek ‘eu’ = good + ’thanatos’ = death81), we must not only distinguish between active, passive and indirect euthanasia but also take abetment to suicide into consideration.

Indirect euthanasia is simply a continuation of the risk common to every medical treatment. Even though the decision can be extremely difficult, it does not involve the deliberate ending of another person’s life.85

Hans Thomas would prefer to abolish the terms ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted death’ and the descriptions associated with them, and to substitute ‘killing’ for active euthanasia and ‘permission to die’ for passive euthanasia.86 Although his suggestion would clarify the actual issue, it is unlikely that it will be accepted.

Passive euthanasia, which merely ceases to interfere in a death process already in progress, usually has little to do with homicide -- although the individual decision will always be difficult; there can be no black or white judgment on the issue,87 as is the case in most ethical questions. The expressions ‘active’ and ‘passive’ must not be understood to mean that the difference lies in the doctor’s participation.88 Murder and manslaughter can occur by omission as is the case when an infant is starved.89 Passive euthanasia suspends the artificial preservation of life processes once recovery and the reversal of the death process have been dismissed as impossible. Not the doctor’s intervention but the disease causes the patient’s death.90 Active euthanasia on the other hand, induces the death process before the natural death process has begun. This is a deliberate killing.

To assist another to die is just as wrong as active euthanasia or suicide, but in contrast to active euthanasia, it is not indictable under German law. Robert Spaemann points out that this legal gap makes Germany unnecessarily attractive to advocates of the individual’s right to decide over the end of his life.91

When active euthanasia is performed at the patient’s demand (which is supposedly always but in reality seldom the case), it is actually abetment to suicide. The problem is that the death wish is: 1. often due to a psychological disturbance; 2. usually temporary and 3. more frequently due to poor social conditions than to pain.

Thomas Fuchs writes concerning the first two points, “A person’s death wish is generally, in 95% of the cases, the expression and the symptom of a psychological illness or an acute conflict situation. Between 80 and 90% of those who have attempted to take their own lives are later glad to be alive. Only about 10% repeat the attempt.“92

Concerning the question whether the wish for suicide should not be binding for the doctor, Gerhard Robbers points out that suspicion of our own will is also legally anchored in other places so that door-to-door sales and consumer credits, for example, are not automatically binding and can easily be revoked later.93 Suicide is not simply the free disposal over one’s own life that is none of anyone’s business, but it has consequences for society. It conveys the impression that life is of low value, it serves as an example, increases pressure on others, e.g. older people, the sick or handicapped, to act the same way and shapes our dealing with life in general.94

For the third point Fuchs then refers to the only available Dutch studies on the issue: “According to Dutch studies, the major motive behind the death wish is not the often cited unendurable pain, but the feeling of the loss of one’s dignity, the fear of dependence, helplessness and deformity. These reflect much more the quality of belongings as the human attitude of the dying person to his environment.“95 Of all countries in the world, as of 1994, only the Netherlands allows active euthanasia under specific circumstances.96 But the US and Australia are also forerunners , as Peter Singer97 and Derek Humphrey,98 vehement public advocates of euthanasia and abetment to suicide, have declared. In Australia’s Northern Territory99 and in the US state Oregon, federal courts have annulled the legalization of euthanasia, but in referenda in several American states, the legalization of euthanasia has been only defeated by a small margin,100 in Washington, for example, by 45-55% and even religious and ecclesiastical groups are divided on the issue.101 Laurence O´Connell writes, “There can be no doubt that active mercy killing on demand will be a legal and moral possibility in the United States by the end of the century.“102

The situation varies considerably in different European states. Due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, the debate over euthanasia is almost unknown, but is becoming conspicuous in the nineties.103 A similar state of affairs is to be observed in France without Roman Catholic influence.104 In Sweden, the debate is older, but euthanasia is surprisingly not so widely accepted as would be expected in view of the country’s reputation as forerunner in the dismantling of other ethical issues.105

Since the seventies, a euthanasia movement has established itself in the Netherlands, while during the seventies and the eighties, the courts’ clemency since the Leeuwarden euthanasia case of 1973 has ipso facto revoked the laws,106 a development typical for the development of human rights problems. As a result, in the eighties the courts have almost always acquitted defendants accused of mercy killing. In 1984, the Dutch Medical Chamber presented codes for active euthanasia, although it was still illegal at the time. The courts comply with these codes, which speak of the patient’s free will, his prolonged death wish and unendurable, hopeless suffering, but require only the confirmation by a second doctor as the only protection against abuse. On June 1, 1994, a law was passed which declares euthanasia punishable in principle, but practically prevents an investigation by the state attorney as long as the doctor has observed the Dutch Medical Chamber’ standards. Since these standards do not require that the patient be suffering a terminal illness, all sorts of social and emotional disturbances can be brought into the context of euthanasia, opening the door for all sorts of abuse.

The Remmelink Report, published in 1991, played a key role in the legislation.107 405 doctors were interviewed and 7,000 deaths examined anonymously. In 1995, after the passing of the new law, the study was repeated. The first study officially recorded 2,300 cases of active mercy killing per year, 1.8 percent of all deaths,108 as well as 400 cases of abetment to suicide.109 The most serious result was that in 1,000 of the 2,300 cases, the patient was killed without his consent. The actual number is probably even higher. In 14 cases, the patient had not been consulted even though he was conscious.110 The primary reason given by doctors for the mercy killing was not pain resistant to therapy (30%), but the hopelessness of the treatment (60%), poor quality of life and the inability of the patient’s family to handle the situation (30% -- more than one answer was possible.). Doctors and family members had the power over life and death and no intent to murder could be detected -- assuming that we are willing to speak of murder. Impatient heirs need only persuade the doctor to perform euthanasia, which no state attorney and no court of law will investigate any further.

Independently of each other, John Keown,111 Henk ten Have112 and Jos Welle have shown in detail that the Remmelink Report minimizes the number of euthanasia cases, particularly those performed without the patient’s consent. As the report defines euthanasia as a case of killing on demand within the context of medical treatment, it fails to clarify the evaluation of mercy killings performed without the patient’s consent.113 Besides there is a special category for cases in which medications which shorten or end life were administered in order to kill, although this is the ‘classical’ method. Even using the report’s own numbers, we find not 2,300 cases of euthanasia but at least 10,558,114 probably 26,350, including those cases in which medication was given at least partly in order to shorten life. In that case the number of euthanasia cases is five or ten times higher than reported.

In 1995 the number of cases of active mercy killing rose from 1.8% of all deaths to 2.3%. If we add those cases in which pain killers etc were deliberately administered in a higher dose, we arrive at 4.5%. Then we can add 10.1% of deaths in which life-prolonging treatment was interrupted, usually without the patient’s consent (60%), and over 7% with similar methods. Altogether, 20% of all deaths, according to information given by doctors, because the doctor has decided that the patient should no longer live.115

“Problematic is also the circumstances of mercy killing on demand: in almost half of the cases, less than a week passed between the patient’s expression of the death wish and the killing, in 13% not even a day, not enough time to adequately test the persistence of the death wish as required by the standards of the Medical Chamber ... Besides three quarters of the doctors failed to consult another colleague, which the official standards require, and 72% filled out false death certificates, in order to avoid an investigation ... As a result of the second study, 60% of the cases were not registered in spite of the new regulations ... In 1990 only 2 cases of euthanasia without the patient’s consent were registered, in 1995 only three ...“116

Herbert Csef describes cases cited in the “New England Journal of Medicine“, in which people 41 years old or less, who had been in psychiatric treatment for only three or four months died by euthanasia,117 in order to avoid either further supposedly hopeless treatment or suicide (using murder to prevent suicide, in other words).

The Dutch have thus not won but sacrificed the great liberty to end their lives at will in cases of extreme suffering; the lives of any seriously ill person may be at risk. The medical standards are a farce, since doctors in almost all the cases have apparently overstepped their own rules, failing either to ask the patient,118 to observe his death wish long enough, or to requesting no second opinion or diagnosis by a colleague. In the majority of cases, the doctor has ended life without consulting anyone and without having known the patient for long enough!119 Even moralists unsure of their position on euthanasia, such as Dietrich von Engelhardt, can only say, “To carry out active euthanasia against the will of the patient or at least without any explanation or agreement is immorality and legally murder.“120

Government studies also show that death certificates are no longer worth the paper they are printed on, for deaths carried out without the patient’s consent were registered as natural deaths, except in a single case.121 As reasons, 47% of doctors mentioned the annoyance of a judicial investigation, 43% claimed that death would have occurred anyway and 28% wanted to spare the family harassment.122

“ Dutch doctors’ high-placed lawyers have scorned to deny that the consent of the patient to euthanasia was only included in the standards for tactical reasons: in this way, they hoped to achieve a general acceptance of euthanasia to start with.“123 As a matter of fact, the procedure for euthanasia is a part of their training.124 The whole function of the medical code is apparently to soothe the public and to prettify the whole thing with sham legality.125 No wonder that Dutch doctors demand a general amnesty for mercy killing of all kinds,126 and that the new standards of 1995 have widened their extent to include patients without terminal illnesses, abetment to the suicide of mentally disturbed, the killing of severely deformed newborns and patients with dementia.127 Even the legal process which permits doctors to pass their own laws and courts to acknowledge them is a preposterous situation for a constitutional state. The Dutch government want to keep the theoretical punishment of euthanasia, since at least half of the cases are still not reported, although the report is meanwhile directed to the doctor conducting the post-mortem and not to the prosecution.128

And actually in 1995, a Dutch court acquitted a doctor who, at the parents’ request, had administered curare to a severely brain-damaged child.129 Nowadays, Hitler would have it so much easier in Netherlands than in World War II when they brought so much sacrifice in order to resist him! Bert Gordijn’s criticism of the Dutch situation is mainly directed towards the fact that the discussion of whether euthanasia is to be morally supported „was quietly ended, or rather a positive answer was implied.“130

In other countries, abuse will probably be worse than in the Netherlands, where the family doctors have more influence than in Germany, for example, and have had longer contact with their patients. Besides, 40% of patients, twice as many as in Germany, die in their own homes rather than in hospitals or nursing homes.131 In Germany the danger of anonymous euthanasia is thus much greater. In the US and in poorer countries there is also the danger that economic factors could determine the question, when the family is no longer willing to pay for treatment.

Christians, above all, are faced with the challenge of facing the euthanasia issue and informing the public about it. Unfortunately, the two excellent studies of the Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics,132 the bioethical center of the Archbishops of England and Wales,133have found no imitators in other European countries.134

What can we learn from the Dutch example? First, that the right to life is indivisible. When society begins to give individuals the power to decide over the right to life, it can not prevent the principle from being applied to ever more circumstances. In warning against the liberalization of abortion laws, Pro-Life advocates in most countries have long predicted that disregarding the sacredness of life before birth would be inevitably followed by further measures and laws that treat human life as if it were worthless.

The human right to life is indivisible. The train has been running in the wrong direction for too long, and the public’s conscience is becoming increasingly dulled in regard to offenses against human life. Either we let the train continue and need not be surprised if we are the next victims whose lives are left to others’ discretion, or we stop it and get into one going into the opposite direction. The Dutch train is farther along than in the rest of Europe, but be not deceived! We are going in the same direction, if somewhat slower.

The Dutch example also teaches us that the advocates of euthanasia use the same tactics as the Pro-Choice movement. At first, they were concerned with only absolute exceptions, a few grave cases of terminally ill patients with unbearable pain, who had expressed a definite wish to die. The supposedly short life expectancy was then extended, new reasons such as loneliness and worries about financial dependency were added, and instead of the express death wish assumed consent, then, if the individual was unable to be consulted, even the lack of the death wish. At the end of the process, euthanasia can even be performed on individuals capable of consent.

“Many of Holland’s citizens now carry a “Declaration of the Wish to Live“ in self defense,“135 but the medical profession doesn’t take them very seriously, they have no legal significance. And that, although the whole mercy killing debate began in the Netherlands with the propaganda, that the written wish of a patient to die in case of serious illness is morally permissible and obligatory.
   

2.3 Prenatal homicide

A report published by World-Watch in Washington reveals that every year there are nearly as many abortions as deaths in World War II. During the entire war, some 55 to 60 million people died altogether, but nowadays, 50 million children are murdered in their mother’s womb, as well as some 200,000 women who die as a result. The numbers are not exaggerated, they probably still do not completely cover the number of unreported abortions.136 In Japan and France, half of all children are killed before birth, in Germany and the Netherlands, one fourth.

You are all quite familiar with the problem, since prenatal murder is the Right-to Life’s original concern, which has been extended above all by medical progress. I would like to address two special aspects.
   

Prenatal killing as a method of family planning

Even as a verbal excuse, the needs of single mothers have given way to other excuses. One lexicon dryly but accurately divulges the brutal but true reason for the high number of abortions: “Induced or artificial abortion is one of the major methods for birth control ....“137 American surveys show that 93% of all abortions are conducted for the reason of birth control and not because of difficult predicaments.138

This becomes obvious, when we observe that the influential organization “International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF: in the US ‘Planned Parenthood’, in Germany, the founding member of the movement,139 ‘Pro Familia’) maintains at the same time the most abortion advice centers in the world and makes massive efforts to promote the right to abortion. As we have already seen, Pro Familia derives the right to abortion from the right to family planning.140

Out of 1,000 American men who escorted their partner to the abortion clinic (and this probably a special selection), 60% claimed to have used poor birth control methods or none at all, 90% would do anything possible in future to prevent an abortion, but 30% were not at the abortion clinic for the first time, and 26% considered abortion the killing of a human being.141 There are therefore many, who use no birth control even after experiencing a abortion.

Every abortion statistic clearly shows that abortion has become a common birth control method which makes sexual desire more important than the right of a human being to live,142 According the statistics of the Medical Tribune,143 in Germany in 1988,144 8,300 abortions were registered, naturally not the number of all performed. Nearly half of the mothers were married (48%), but 87% of the operations were performed on the pretext of ‘other grave distress’, and that in one of the world’s wealthiest countries!145 Even if we assumed that unwanted pregnancies were unavoidable in extra-marital relations, there is still no reasonable explanation for the fact that half of the children were aborted by married couples who as educated Europeans of the Twentieth Century ought to know how children are made. But abortion has become an acceptable birth control method.

The magnitude of the abortion tragedy can only be explained by the magnitude of modern liberal sexuality. Abortion is supported not only by Pro-Choice lobbies but also by the sex industry. One of the most significant commentaries on German penal law says, “An individual and social attitude that no longer considers children a blessing but considers abortion a means to female self-fulfillment has blunted many people’s repugnance towards the act.“146
   

Prenatal Diagnostics have transformed our view of disease

In the mean time, medical progress is increasingly being used as a step towards killing a child in the womb. Prenatal diagnosis is seldom employed in the treatment of health problems before or directly after birth, but to make possible the most awful selection, if the infant is or even might be disabled according to a genetic analysis. Ulrich Eibach writes, “In no other field of medicine is the gap between diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities so wide as in the field of prenatal diagnosis. The result is, that diagnosis is deliberately performed even when there is no therapy available for the ‘object’ of the diagnosis. This is new in medicine, for diagnostic methods are generally only legitimate when they serve the well-being of their ‘object’- The factual consequence of the prenatal diagnosis of disease is almost always abortion, not the treatment of the bearer of a disease, but his destruction.“147

This has far-reaching consequences for medical practice. “Predictive medicine transforms our view of disease. A person is considered ill, not when the disorder has manifested itself as a disturbance in the real functions of the body or the psychological-mental affects, but when he has inherited a genetic tendency towards such disturbances, tendencies which may never express themselves.“148

At this point, we cannot ignore the parallels to the Third Reich and its selective policies149, as Ulrich Eibach points out, “Completely unconvincing is the assertion that our modern attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis, selection, euthanasia etc. have nothing in common with those which laid the intellectual groundwork for the medical crimes in Nazi Germany. The Nazi state put into practice the theories that Social Darwinism and other philosophies of the early twentieth century had justified as rational, even scientific (=evolutionary).“150

If we are again prepared to allow the state to dispose over the right of whole sections of the population to life, the state has lost its most important right to exist, the responsibility to protect the life of its citizens. While governments were signing an agreement in Rio de Janeiro to protect endangered species of plants and animals, the German Parliament passes a law permitting the destruction of the ‘species’ human being in the womb.
   

Excursus: the dubious founders of ‘pro familia’

As we have seen, ‘pro familia’,151 the largest family planning organization (6,195 members152), derives the right to abortion from the right to family planning.153 Repeated documentation demonstrates that the organization persuades, even pressures women to abort,154 vehemently opposes financial aid for mothers in need and measures to ease the adoption of children which would otherwise be aborted.155 Abortion at any price? ‘pro familia’ publishes pornographic material, even for children, and encourages children to have sex which adults also enjoy. Rüdiger Lautmann, professor for sociology (sexology) openly solicits pedophiles in his article, “The Desire for the Child“156, and propagates his opinions in ‘pro-familia’s magazine.157 But ‘pro familia’ appears to be a sacred cow. And this organization advises more families and pregnant women in need than all other organizations together?

The links between National Socialist, racist eugenics and abortion reform and the family planning movement can be found in the years prior to 1950,158 with the founder of the ‘International Planned Parenthood Federation“, Margaret Sanger, and, more clearly, with the founder of ‘pro familia’, Hans Ludwig Friedrich Harmsen. These organizations’ silence about their origins is striking, considering the fact that they all too cheerfully accuse their opponents of fascism.

Margaret (Higgins) Sanger (1883-1966) was the “pioneer of the American and international movement for birth control. In 1917/1929, she edited the magazine, “Birth control review“, founded the first clinic for birth control in the US and in 1921, the American League for Birth Control ... In 1927, she organized the first world conference on population in Geneva and became the first president of the International Alliance for Family Planning in 1953.“159 Although she had originally had close ties to National Socialist family planning, she later repudiated them , but still supported abortion as well as birth control. She emphasized not only the supposed rights of women but also the reduction of the surplus population.160 Even abortion advocates speak of the “racist-eugenic heritage of the IPPF initiator, Margaret Sanger“.161 Sanger demanded the limitation of the number of children ...162

In the beginning, Sanger was a Socialist who wanted to get rid of Capitalism. Birth control was considered a means of class struggle.163 Later on she followed the Malthusian thinking164, but her Socialist tendencies were still shining through when she claimed that Capitalists, priests and politicians only suppressed birth control because the higher numbers of children would impoverish the lower social classes.165 The number of people unfit for life166 was to be reduced by means of birth control. By that Sanger usually referred to handicapped and mentally ill people, although she sometimes understood the term ethnically167 and in practice, she work together a lot with many racist thinking eugenicists.168

Hans Ludwig Friedrich Harmsen (1899-1988)1169, co-founder and president of ‘pro-familia’ from 1952 to 1967, was one of the leading eugenicists and adversaries of ‘inferior’ human beings, and at the same time the medical administrator of the Lutheran Inland Mission (nowadays Diakonisches Werk).170

As early as in 1926, he supported to free a people of harmed genotype (‘schädliche Erbmasse’) in his second doctoral thesis.171 Later on, Harmsen held leading offices in social welfare services of the church and in hospitals. In 1931, he spoke out for the „need ... of a eugenic new-orientation of our welfare services.“172 Whether he, together with other founders of ‘pro familia’, was already for the eugenic indication, that means abortion in case of handicaps,173 since the national power (Volkskraft) was not to be wasted on raising the inferior (Minderwertige),174 is disputed.175He more and more explicitly demanded the selection of people with hereditary diseases and thus voted for the National Socialist „Law for the contraception of genetically damaged offspring“ of 1933, - as a representative of the church social welfare services! This law permitted compulsory sterilization (Zwangssterilisation), compulsory abortion and soon the killing of handicapped and mentally ill people.176 As manager (Geschäftsführer) of the ‘Gesamtverband der deutschen Krankenanstalten’ (General Association of the German Hospitals and Clinics), Harmsen was the leading Protestant advocate of this law in a number of publications, for example a church commentary on the law on hereditary health (Erbgesundheitsgesetz).177At the same time he was the person chiefly responsible for the practical application of this law and other National Socialist measures in Protestant hospitals and clinics.178 This has neither harmed his career after 1945, nor did it lead to a statement on the part of the church.179

After the war, Harmsen never denied his support for the eradication of the genetically damaged.180 Heidrun Kaupen-Haas has demonstrated181 that, in the Fifties, Harmsen never condemned the ‘Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuches’ as National Socialist, but continued to defend the same positions he had held prior to 1945. In spite of this, he was made a professor and the director of the Hygienic Institute in Hamburg, where he assembled other renowned race-eugenicists of the pre-1945 period into scientific associations and worked as a appraiser for the German Government.182

‘Pro familia’ claims to have been unaware of Harmsen’s engagement in the Third Reich183 until 1984, when it urged him to give up his honorary presidency.184 This seems very improbable, as the facts had long been well known, the accusation that ‘pro familia’ had grown out of racist roots just like the IPPF were old, and ‘pro familia’s’ own commemorative publication on Harmsen’s eightieth birthday185 had also hinted at the fact. Whereby the Laudatio186 and other articles about Harmsen187 catalogue his writings and his offices in the Third Reich, but offer neither explanations nor criticism.
   

3 What next? -- Suggestions for the Right-to-Life Movement

The developments described above present the greatest challenge to the Pro-Life Movement in Europe! Most of those threatened either cannot speak for themselves and/or have no organized lobby. The Pro-Life Movement, as a human rights organization must give them a lobby!

This speech has been scheduled between the three major themes of this forum: abortion, euthanasia and the Bioethics Convention, and the practical issues of -’Pro-Life Cooperation’ in Europe, which are to be discussed today and tomorrow. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few suggestions.

Even though the conditions are somewhat different in the USA, I believe that we can learn from our American counterparts much that we, as the Aktion christliche Gesellschaft e. V. (Campaign Christian Society) have examined in order to win new ideas for Europe. As we have no time at the moment to go into the historical details, I would like to refer you to the report of my representative, Dr. Susanne Lux, which is available here.188

    We need a much stronger system of communications and collaboration between all Right to Life groups and activities: lawyers’ associations, counseling centers, homes for single mothers, media campaigns, both on the national level and on the international level. Much has been achieved, but not enough. The purpose of this conference, to bring European Pro-Life groups together, must not be only a nine-days wonder. Too many groups are unaware of the publications, activities and possibilities of others. The attempt to find out what is being done in another city or country leads to a long, weary search, because there is no central directory available.189
    The combined efforts of the Right-to-Life Movements must be coordinated into a political lobby. Our local work must provide a base, but we need full-time representatives on higher levels to continually remind governments, whether by appointment or as participants in conferences, etc., that central human rights issues must still be clarified, for they still disturb part of the population.
    We must learn to employ ‘Salami-Tactics’. This means publicizing minor changes in the law or making concrete stipulations which are still being supported by the public. The demand, “Prohibit abortion,“ will find little echo, but we can still provoke emotional support for the demand “Prohibit the abortion of children capable of living outside the womb.“190 We must learn that those who oppose late-term abortion are not necessarily opposed to early-term abortion; they are merely trying to keep the Right-to Life issue alive in the public’s mind. The German campaign, “www.timlebt.de“ is an excellent example. If such tactics are to succeed, all Pro-Life groups must be willing to engage their efforts on such projects.
    The success of the American groups depends to a large extent on the support of the churches, not so much the national organizations, but the local congregations, which often provide the necessary groundwork. We must use the potential of the local churches who are interested in our cause but lack information. Within the great denominations, whether state church or free church, the local congregations are quite varied in their attitude towards abortion. We need a network of congregations willing to provide us with more than logistical or other support. Christians will simply have to overcome some of their fears of contact, if we are to aid the unborn. These fears frequently prevent churches from using their potential.
    We need information for the public and solid medical, legal and ethical literature, such as the German “Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht’ of the Juristenvereinigung Leben (Journal for the Right to Life by the Lawyers’ Association Life) or ALFA’s ‘Lebensforum’. They must be produced on the same level as established journals, so that they can be made available in public libraries. We need -- and I say this as a publisher -- annuals and collections such as Readers Digest which reprint good articles from our professional journals, Europe-wide if possible, to act as a lobby and to inform on Pro-Life issues in a professional manner.

Prologue for my colleagues

Please allow me to say a few personal words on the subject. I would like to call German theologians to the fray. I am often disappointed in the failure of Christian theologians and church leaders to take their role of watchmen seriously; often they stab Pro-Lifers in the back. On the Protestant side, few Ethics professors engage themselves in the Right-to Life movement, or even support its ideas. Even on the Catholic side, there is a deep gap between the engagement of the Church and many of its Ethics professors. The speaker for the professors of morality in Germany, Hans Kramer, advocates to some degree the use of the abortion pill RU 486.191

A glance into the Table of Contents of theological ethical works shows that the majority generally ignore the issue or avoid clear positions on it192 -- I am ashamed to compare the number of medical and legal professors who support the movement with solid articles on the debate.

The declaration made by the two major churches, “Wieviel Wissen tut uns gut? Chancen und Risiken der voraussagenden Medizin“ (How much knowledge does us good? Chances and Risks of Predictive Medicine)193,written primarily by ethics professors194, makes no clear statements against abortion except where it is “illegal“.195 Prenatal diagnosis could prepare the way for eugenics196, but where is the church, anyway? Such tendencies are already brutal reality. The most they have to say about the defense of the unborn is, that it is a value worthy of being protected197, or “When we speak of prenatal human life, we must mention its moral status and its right to protection.“198 As if the German Supreme Court or the Pro-Choice advocates said the opposite.

A Commission of the World Council of Churches published a declaration on gene technics in 1973.199 At prominent places they call for such ‘important’ things like a better education for scientists200, as if one would need the churches for remarks like this. But they say near to nothing about the real ethical problems. Discussing prenatal diagnosis nothing is said against abortion201, even so it is stated that abortion is ‘a difficult decision’. The ‘clearest’ sentence about abortion sounds like this: "We can say that a decision for fetal diagnosis and abortion is a weighty decision, for the fetus, although still dependent, has a potential existence as an independent human being."202

The Central Ethics Commission of the Federal Medical Chamber, for example, voted 22 to 23 in 1989 to permit the elimination of unwanted additional children produced by artificial insemination. A woman wants to become a mother and purchases the privilege with murder. The only opposing vote came not from the theologians (Professors Böckle, Bonn, RC and Rösler, Tübingen, Lutheran), but from the Hamburg Andrologist Professor Schirren!203 Michael Gante considers the 1960 liberal contribution of the Protestant Theology professor Karl Janssen in the journal “ Evangelische Ethik“ (Protestant Ethics) a trail-blazer for the elimination of the old abortion law.204

How different are the words in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethik: “To kill the fruit in the womb is to injure the right to life given the child by God. To even ask whether this is already a human being or not, only confuses the simple fact that this human being has been intentionally robbed of his life. That is nothing other than murder.“205 “That the motives leading to such an act may arise out of deepest human or economic need and despair, that the guilt often lies at society’s door, and that, whereas wealth may be able to conceal foolishness, the poor are most likely to be discovered, all of these factors should determine the counselor’s personal behavior towards the individual, but none alter the fact that this is murder.“206

Karl Barth expressed himself in similarly barbed terms, for he speaks of the “secret mass murder which has recently taken flight and become habit, and that in the so-called civilized world.“207 In 1951, he asked, “...where is the testimony of the Protestant Church in response to this rising tide of disaster?“208 Fifty years later, we can only repeat his cry.


1Barbara Esser and Petra Hollweg. Euthanasie: Im Namen des Mitleids: Eine Frau, die ihre behindertes Kind tötete, fand milde Richter, aber kein Verständnis bei Behinderten. (Focus 18/1998): pp. 34-36.
2Luke Gormally (Ed.). Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law: (The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics: London: 1994), pp. 15-22, 95, 104-107.
3The most extensive presentation of the German situation is: Mir­jam Zimmermann. Geburtshilfe als Sterbehilfe: Zur Behand­lungsentscheidung bei schwerstgeschädigten Neugeborenen und Frühgeborenen. Peter Lang: Frankfurt, 1997 (it is concerned with medical, psychological and ethical aspects as well as aspects of law - the author is not against euthanasia in principle). Comp. also the personal report of a couple that purposely decided to deliver a severely handicapped (schwerstbehindertes ?) child: Inka und Torsten Marold. Immanuel: Die Ge­schichte der Geburt eines anenzephalen Kin­des. Edition pro mundis 1. Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft: Bonn, 1996.
4Ärztezeitung from July 1st/2nd, 1988.
5Christine Schirrmacher. Zeitspiegel, (Querschnitte 1 July-Sept.1988): 4. The English government first prohibited abortion in 1803 (excepting danger to the mother’s life). See: Barbar Brookes. Abortion in England 1900-1967. (Croon Helm: London 1988).
6See William A. Stanmeyer. The Seduction of Society: Pornography and Its Impact an American Life. Servant Books: Ann Arbor (MI), 1984, p. 93.
7Bernward Büchner. “Ist das ‘Beratungskonzept’ besser als andere Fristenregelungen.“ (Schriftenreihen der Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht e. V. zu Köln No. 15. JVL. Cologne 1998), pp. 9-15.
8So uttered the chairman of the Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht on the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in a press release on May 8, 1998.
9There are innumerable examples. Acquittals for euthanasia began in the Netherlands in the seventies. Long before the laws had been changed, German courts seldom penalized abortion.
10John Warwick Montgomery. Human Rights and Human Dignity. (Canadian Institute for Law, Theology and Public: Edmonton, Canada, 1995), (repr. from Probe Books, USA 1986), p. 15.
11See: Martin Kriele. Die nichttherapeutische Abtreibung vor dem Grundgesetz. (Schriften zum öffentlichem Recht 625. Duncker und Humbolt: Berlin, 1992), p. 68.
12Josef Punt. Die Idee der Menschenrechte: Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung und ihre Rezeption durch die moderne katholische Sozialverkündigung. (Abhandlungen zur Sozialethik 29. Schöningh: Paderborn, 1987), pp. 223-224.
13Cf. Thomas Schirrmacher. Völker -- Drogen -- Kannibalismus: Ethnologische und länderkundliche Beiträge 1984-1994. (Disputationes linguarum et cultuum orbis -- Sectio V: Volkskunde und Germanistik, Vol. 4. Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft: Bonn, 1997), pp. 62-64.
14Cf. Thomas Schirrmacher. Christlicher Glaube und Menschenrechte, (in Russian). POISK: Ezemedel’naja Vsesojunznaja Gazeta (Journal of the Russian Acadamy of Sciences. No. 48 (446) November 22-28, 1997), p. 13. Repr. as Christlicher Glaube und Menschenrechte, (in Russian) Utschtijelskaja Gazeta (Russian Teacher’s Journal No. 2 (9667) Jan. 3, 1998, p. 21 and No. 3 (9968) Feb. 3, 1998), p. 22.
15For the best chronology of the convention, see Paul. Die Bioethik- und Grundwert-Debatte in Deutschland (1993-1998): Eine Do­kumentation. Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozial­forschung: Duisburg, 1998 Jobst and Hubert Hüppe. Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? Die sogenannte ‘Bioethik-Konvention“ des Europarates’. pp. 3-16 in Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? (Idea-Dokumentation 10/97. Idea: Wetzlar, 1997). These articles also provide the locations of many protocols of various plena, announcements and resolutions, which cannot be listed in detail here. See also the various contributions for and against it in: Roland Rösler (Ed.). Biologie im Horizont der Philosophie: Der Entwurf einer europäischen 'Bioethik'-Konvention. Moraltheologie - An­thropologie - Ethik Band 2. Peter Lang: Frankfurt, 1997 and also: Johannes Reiter. "Bioethik und Bioethikkonvention". In: Politik und Zeitgeschichte (supplement of: Das Parlament) B 6/99 (5.2.1999): pp. 3-11.
16Hubert Hüppe. “Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? Die sogenannte ‘Bioethik-Konvention’ des Europarates“. op. cit., pp. 10-12, with numerous examples (e.g. from Peter Liese) und Roland Rösler (Ed.). Biologie im Horizont der Philosophie: Der Entwurf einer europäischen 'Bioethik'-Konvention. loc cit. pp. 18-21+28-29 (Roland Rösler); see also the contributions of delegates of the various parties: Robert Antretter. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates.“ Schriftenreihe der Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht e.V. zu Köln Nr. 15. JVL: Cologne, 1998. pp. 17-24 (SPD: Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Commission); Peter Liese. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates, “Schriftenreihe der Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht e.V. zu Köln Nr. 15 JVL: Cologne, 1998, pp. 25-38 (MdEP CDU; doctor); Martina Steindor. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates, “Schriftenreihe der Juristen-Vereinigung Lebensrecht e.V. zu Köln Nr. 15. JVL: Cologne, 1998, pp. 39-49 (MDB Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, doctor).
17For details see: Jobst Paul. Im Netz der Bioethik. Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung: Duisburg, 1994. pp.11+12+52.
18For Germany’s reaction during the votes on the individual articles, see: “Unterrichtung der Bundesregierung über den Verhandlungsstand des Menschenrechtsübereinkommens zur Biomedizin.“ (Bundestagsdrucksache 13/5435, August 21, 1996). Here cited from http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm. (This is the Webpage of the ‘Zentrum für medizinische Ethik’ of the University of Bochum.)
19According to http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm, using the statements of the Auswärtigen Amt (Foreign Office); Christian Poplutz. “Die Bioethik-Convention wahrt nicht die Würde des Menschen.“ The Deutsche Tagespost (Würzburg), May 15, 1998, referring to the Bundestagesdrucksache 13/9577, Nr. 1, mentions only 22 states.
20Article 33 of the Bioethics Convention and Paragraph 171-177 of the Explanatory Report of the European Council on the Bioethics Convention. One of the five must either be Canada, Australia, the Vatican, Japan, the USA or from the European Union.
21See the discussion in Christian Poplutz. Offene Fragen zur Bioethik-Konvention, op. cit., pp. 6-7.
22According to the Upper House (Bundesrat). See Bundesrats-Drucksache 617/96.
23Christian Poplutz. Offene Fragen zur Bioethik-Konvention, op. cit. p. 7. The reference cited there is not correct.
24See the text in Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht 7 (1998) 1: pp. 16-20 (or under http://www. k. shuttle. de/jvl/schriften/zfl1998/01) and in http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm. These include both the translation of the Ministry of Justice, April 4, 1997, and the earlier version of Nov. 11, 1996. The latter has also appeared in Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? Idea-Dokumentation 10/97 pp. 24-33. The text of the Explanatory Report can also be found in http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm (the official translation) and in Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? Idea-Dokumentation 10/97 pp. 34-49 (in a very good inofficial translation).
25See the English original in Gefahr für die Menschenwürde? Idea-Dokumentation 10/97, pp. 17-23 and http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm.
26Article 6, Paragraphs 2+3: “his or her representative“, or “son répresentant“; see Christian Poplutz. “Offene Fragen zur Bioethik-Konvention“, op. cit, p. 8.
27An inofficial translation can be found together with the English original under the Webpage http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm.
28Bundestagsdrucksache 13/5435, August 21, 1996. Cited from http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm.
29Ibid., under 2.
30Ibid., under 8. (on Article 18).
31Ibid., under 4. (on Articles 32 and 36).
32 The internet is a treasure trove concerning this topic. The best criticism of the Bioethics Convention known to me is: "Kritik der 'Münchner Initiative gegen die Menschenrechts­konvention zur Biomedizin' an der Informationsschrift des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom Jan. 1998 ..." http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/sushine/314/infos/kritik.html; see also: Jobst Paul. "Der Begriff und die Ideologie der 'Bioethik'". Lecture (Referat) at the symposium 'Bioethics versus Human Rights' of the Green Parliament’s Club in the German Bundestag on March 18, 1997, http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c6/bidok/texte/begriff_bio­ethik.html (visited on May 16,1999); "Stellungnahme des Zentralkomitees der deutschen Katholiken zum Menschen­rechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europa­rats" (11.9.1997) hier nach http://selbsthilfe.seiten.de/­sonstiges/zdk_bio.htm (May 16,1999). Concerning the situation in Austria see Heinz Trompisch. "Österreich und die Bioethikkonvention". Lecture (Referat) at the symposium 'Bioethics versus Human Rights' of the Green Parliament’s Club in the German Bundestag on March 18, 1997, http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c6/bidok/texte/oesterr_bioethikkonvention.html (visited on May 16, 1999).
33Jobst Paul. "Der Begriff und die Ideologie der 'Bioethik'". loc cit. p. 5.
34Jobst Paul. Im Netz der Bioethik. Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung: Duisburg, 1994. p. 52.
35Jobst Paul. "Der Begriff und die Ideologie der 'Bioethik'". loc cit. pp. 5-6.
36Heinz Trompisch. "Österreich und die Bioethikkonvention". loc cit. p. 5.
37"Stellungnahme des Zentralkomitees der deutschen Katholiken zum Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europa­rats" (September 11, 1997) quoted from: http://selbsthilfe.seiten.de/sonstiges/zdk_bio.htm (May 16, 1999).
38Article 17, Paragraph 7 of the Bioethics Convention.
39Michael Emmrich. "Forschung an nichteinwilligungsfähigen Men­schen". In: Politik und Zeitgeschichte (supplement of: Das Parlament) B 6/99 (Feb. 5, 1999): 12-21, here p. 17.
40Johannes Reiter. "Bioethik und Bioethikkonvention". In: Politik und Zeitgeschichte (supplement of: Das Parlament) B 6/99 (Feb. 5, 1999): 3-11, here p. 9.
41Jobst Paul. "Der Begriff und die Ideologie der 'Bioethik'". loc cit. p. 6.
42Martina Steindor. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates“, op. cit., p. 43.
43Peter Liese. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates,“ op. cit., p. 33. Strange that Liese is unsure whether the Convention should be signed, in spite of his own criticism.
44Bundesgesetzblatt 1990 I: 2746f.
45See Paragraph 166 of the Explanatory Report of the European Council on the Bioethics Convention.
46According to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the arguments brought by other states in regard to the “Unterrichtung der Bundesregierung über den Verhandlungsstand des Menschenrechtsübereinkommens zur Biomedizin“ (“Federal Government Report on the Negotiations concerning the Human Rights Agreement on Biomedicine“) op. cit., to 12, (Article 29).
47Rudolf Willeke. “Die Bioethik-Konvention -- Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin.“ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Feb. 10, 1998. See reprint in: Medizin und Ideologie 26 (1998) 3: pp. 33-37.
48Paragraph 18 of the Explanatory Report of the European Council on the Bioethics Convention.
49‘Wieviel Wissen tut uns gut? Chancen und Risiken der voraussagenden Medizin. Gemeinsames Wort der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland zur Woche für das Leben 1997. (Gemeinsame Texte 11. Kirchennamt der EKD: Hannover & Deutschen Bischofskonferenz: Bonn, 1997), p. 23.
50Christian Poplutz. “Offene Fragen zur Bioethik-Konvention, op. cit., p. 9 on the German Research Society. Forschungsfreiheit: Ein Plädoyer für bessere Rahmenbedingungen der Forschung in Deutschland. DFG: Weinheim, 1996.
51See Robert Geursen. “Heilen mit Genen“. Gesellschaftspolitische Kommentare 39, July 7, 1998, pp. 10-14, see p.13.
52See Martins Steindor. “Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Bioethik des Europarates,“ op. cit. pp. 45-46.
53Ibid., and Hubert Hüppe. “Gefahr für die Menschenwürde?“ op. cit., p. 15.
54See as an example with regard to that Robert Geursen. “Heilen mit Genen“. Gesellschaftspolitische Kommentare 39, July 7, 1998, p.13.
55Ibid., and Rudolf Willeke. “Die Bioethik-Konvention -- Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin,“ op. cit. The information comes from the documents of the DCBI.
56“Unterrichtung der Bundesregierung über den Verhandlungsstand des Menschenrechts-übereinkommens zur Biomedizin,“ op.cit., under 5 (on Article 13).
57Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages. Zur Vereinbarung des Menschenrechtsübereinkom­mens zur Bio­medizin des Europarates vom 6. Juni 1996 (früher: Bioethik-Konvention) mit den Grundrechten, 7. November 1996, Bonn, Reg.-Nr. WF III-155/96; see also the legal objections in: Wolfram Höfling. "Menschenrechte und Biomedizin". Uni­versitas (Stuttgart) 51 (1996) 603: 854-861; in Michael Emmrich. "Forschung an nichteinwilligungsfähigen Men­schen". In: Politik und Zeitgeschichte (supplement of: Das Parlament) B 6/99 (5.2.1999): 12-21 and in Udo Schlaudraff. "Zwischen Konsens und Widerstand". pp. 9-28 in: Walther Gose, Herbert Hoffmann, Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Ed.). Ak­tive Sterbehilfe? Zum Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Patienten. Pauli­nus: Trier, 1997. pp. 15-20.
58According to ibid.·p.·17;·see also·Johannes Reiter. „Bioethik und Bioethikkonvention".·loc cit.·pp.·8-9.
59Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Nr 15, April 11, 1997, pp. C-749-C-750. Repr. in “Gefahr für die Menschenwürde?“ Idea-Dokumentation 10/97, pp. 50-51.
60“Zusatzprotokoll zum Übereinkommen zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und der Menschenwürde im Hinblick auf die Anwendung von Biologie und Medizin über das Verbot des Klonens von menschlichen Lebenwesen vom 12. Januar 1998“, Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht 7 (1998). Also available in http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/zme/Europarat.htm.
61Ibid.
62See: Ludwig Siep. "Klonen: Die künstliche Schaffung des Menschen?". In: Politik und Zeitgeschichte (supplement of: Das Par­lament) B 6/99 (5.2.1999): pp. 22-29.
63Stefan Brandmaier. "'Klumpen ohne Nerven'". Lebensforum Nr. 50 (2/1999): pp. 16-17.
64Joshua Lederberg. “The Biological Future of Man,“ Man and His Future, Ed. Gordon Wolstehom. Churchill: London 1964, p. 265.
65I primarily use the excellent works of Robert Spaemann and Thomas Fuchs. Töten oder Sterben lassen? Worum es in der Euthanasiedebatte geht. Herder: Freiburg 1997, pp, 219-240; and Luke Gormally, Ed. Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law. The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics: London, 1994.
66John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands in the Light of the Remmelink Report and The Van Der Maas Survey in Luke Gormally, Ed. Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law. The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics: London, 1994, pp. 219-240. See also John Keown. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope?“ in Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives.. Ed. John Keown. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, Great Britain, 1995.
67See Dirk Richter, Dorothea Sauter. Patienttötungen und Gewaltakte durch Pflegekräfte. Deutscher Bundesverband für Plegeberufe: Eschborn, 1997.
68See Hansjörg Bräumer. “‘Unwertes’ Leben in Gefahr: Euthanasie und Extinktion,“ Informationsbrief der Bekenntnisbewegung (Lüdenscheid) Nr. 145 (April 1991): 9-17 and Themenheft Gestern ‘lebensunwert’ -- heute ‘unzumutbar’: Wiederholt sich die Geschichte doch? W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag: München 1998 (with documentation). On euthanasia in the Third Reich and its precursors since the turn of the century, see Kurt Nowak. ‘Euthanasie’ und Sterilisierung im ‘Dritten Reich’: Die Konfrontation der evangelischen und katholischen Kirche mit dem ‘Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses’ und der ‘Euthanasie’-Aktion. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes Ergänzungsreihe 12. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 1978.
69Norbert Hoerster. "Rechtsethische Überlegungen zur Sterbehilfe". pp. 51-70 in: Walther Gose, Herbert Hoffmann, Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Ed.). Aktive Sterbehilfe? Zum Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Pati­enten. Paulinus: Trier, 1997. pp. 69.
70“The Right to Death.“
71“The Legalisation of the Destruction of Life not Worth Living.“
72 Social Darwinism, which has developed in the last century, has had an enormous impact on family and social politics and politics in general, see: Kurt Nowak. 'Euthanasie' und Sterilisierung im 'Dritten Reich': Die Kon­frontation der evan­gelischen und katholi­schen Kirche mit dem 'Gesetz zur Ver­hütung erbkranken Nachwuchses' und der 'Euthanasie'-Ak­tion. Ar­beiten zur Ge­schichte des Kirchenkampfes ER 12. Vandenhoeck & Ru­precht: Göttingen, 1978. pp. 11-26; Peter E. Becker. Zur Geschichte der Rassenhygiene: Wege ins Dritte Reich. Thieme: Stuttgart, 1988; Peter E. Becker. Wege ins Dritte Reich, Teil 2: Sozialdarwinis­mus, Rassismus, Antisemitismus. Thieme: Stuttgart, 1990; Willi Dreßen. "Rassenhygiene". pp. 167-168 in: Wolfgang Benz (Ed.). Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile: Ein Wörter­buch zur Zeitge­schichte. dtv: München, 19934; Christian Vogel. "Die Macht der Tatsachen: Der Einfluß der Biolo­gie auf die Moral". Medizin und Ideologie 17 (1995): 34-38 (aus Universitas 1/1993); Wilhelm Lütgert. Die Religion des Idealismus und ihr Ende. 4. Teil: Das Ende des Idealismus im Zeitalter Bismarcks. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie. 2. Reihe 21. C. Bertels­mann: Gü­tersloh, 1930. pp. 299-311 und Bernhard Hassenstein. "Biologische Theorien und deren Einflüsse auf geistige Strömungen des 20. Jahrhunderts". Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Welt­anschauungsfragen 59 (1996) 7: 193-199; vgl. zu kulturge­schichtlichen, evolutio­nistischen Entwürfen als Vorge­schichte der Eugenik auch Derek Free­man. Liebe ohne Aggres­sion: Margaret Meads Legende von der Fried­fertigkeit der Naturvölker. Kindler: München, 1983. pp. 21-81 und die histo­rischen Teile von Markus Vogt. Sozialdarwinismus: Wissenschaftstheorie, politi­sche und theolo­gisch-ethische Aspekte der Evolutionstheorie. Herder: Freiburg, 1997.
73Rolf Winau. “Euthanasie im NS Staat.“ Lebensforum Nr. 46:2/1998: 8-13.
74Robert Spaemann: “Es gibt kein gutes Töten“. pp. 12-30 in: Robert Spaemann, Thomas Fuchs. Töten oder sterben lassen? Worum es in der Euthanasiedebatte geht. Herder: Freiburg, 1997. p. 21.
75Ibid. p. 21-22.
76“Principles of Medically Assisted Death“ of the Central Ethics Commission of the Federal Medical Chamber.
77Martina Fietz. “Ärztekammer verabschiedet Grundsätze zur Sterbehilfe: Verbände und Parteien protestieren“. Die Welt of Sep. 12, 1998 p. 2.
78Johann-Christoph Student. “Tötungsverbot ausgehöhlt“. Lebensforum No 47 3/1998: pp. 6-7.
79Ibid.
80E.g. Hans Thomas. “Das Frankfurter Oberlandesgericht unterspült keinen Damm“. Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht 7 (1988) 2: pp. 22-26.
81Francis Bacon and Thomas Morus were the first modern advocates of active euthanasia, which had been unthinkable since the middle ages. Cf. Dietrich von Engelhardt. “Euthanasie in historischer Perspektive“. op. cit. pp. 16-19. Bacon and Morus looked back to antique models like Sparta, Platon’s 'Politeia' and the Stoa (ib. p. 17). Cf. to the history of euthanasia ibid. completely, esp. the literature pp. 24-25.
82Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe: Das Beispiel der Niederlande und die Ethik des Sterbens“. pp. 31-107 in: Robert Spaemann, Thomas Fuchs. “Töten oder sterben lassen? Worum es in der Euthanasiedebatte geht“. Herder: Freiburg, 1997. p. 34. It should indeed be noted, that the desire of the patient is not crucial and - as the example of the Netherlands will show (see futher on in the text) - is rarely evident.
83Ibid. p. 35.
84Ibid.
85Friedrich Haarhaus. “Aktivierende Altenhilfe“. Hänssler: Neuhausen, 1991. p. 132 deems the borderline between active and passive euthanasia fluent, because even the Pope Pius XII admitted the use of anaestetica that imply a short cut to life. Such gifts of anaestetica deal neither with active nor with passive euthanasia, if the intent of the medication is by no means the manslaughter. Otherwise the majority of operations, narcotizing etc. must not be applicated, because many of these cases embody a potential risk for life.
86E.g. Hans Thomas. “Das Frankfurter Oberlandesgericht unterspült keinen Damm“. Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht 7 (1988) pp. 22-26, p. 23.
87 Dietrich von Engelhardt. “Euthanasie in historischer Perspektive“. op. cit. p. 23 and Harald Wagner. “Euthanasie“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993): pp. 87-89, p. 88 also accentuate, that the evidently existing vagueness of distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not refuted; cf Markus von Lutterotti. “Grenzen ärztlicher Behandlungspflicht und passive Sterbehilfe“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993): pp. 3-14.
88See esp.·Ulrich·Eibach.·Sterbehilfe·-·Tötung·aus·Mitleid: Euthanasie·und·'lebensunwertes'·Leben.·R.·Brockhaus:·Wuppertal,·1998.·pp.·89-91;·Anselm·Winfried·Müller.·Tötung·auf·Verlangen·-·Wohltat·oder·Untat?·Kohlhammer·Philosophie.·Ethik Aktuell·3.·W.·Kohlhammer:·Stuttgart,·1997.·pp.·95-128 and·N.·M. de·S.·Cameron.·"Euthanasia".·pp.·357-359·in:·David·J.·Atkinson,·David·H.·Field·(ed.).·New·Dictionary·of·Christian·Ethics·and·Pastoral·Theology.·IVP:·Downers·Grove·(IL),·1995.
89So defines Brian Clowes in “Die Tatsachen des Lebens.“ Human Life International: Front Royal (VI), 1997. p. 64 the terms, which in my opinion is totally misleading. Besides that the catholic author is also in contradiction to the ‘facultas docendi’ of the Pope and the worldwide church, see Johannes Paul II. Enzyklika Evangelium vitae. of march 25 1995. “Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls 120“. Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz: Bonn, 1995 3. pp. 78-81, No 64-65 and “Katechismus der katholischen Kirche“. Oldenbourg: München, 1993. pp. 579-580, No 2276-2279.
90Esp. Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. pp. 67-68.
91Cf. Robert Spaemann. “Es gibt kein gutes Töten“. op. cit. pp. 27-28. Even the advocat of active euthanasia, Norbert Hoerster. "Rechtsethische Überlegungen zur Sterbehilfe". pp. 51-70 in: Walther Gose, Herbert Hoffmann, Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Ed.). Aktive Sterbehilfe? Zum Selbst­bestimmungsrecht des Pati­enten. Paulinus: Trier, 1997, here p. 61 is for an introduction and tightening (Verschärfung) of the prohibition of suicide, because he only accepts euthanasia in „a severe, irreversible case of suffering“.
92Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. p. 85.
93Gerhard Robbers. "Euthanasie und die Folgen für unsere Rechts­gemeinschaft". loc cit., pp. 81.
94Thomas Fuchs. "Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe". loc cit., pp. 76-78.
95Ibid. p. 57.
96Cf. the excellently discriminating outlines in Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe: Das Beispiel der Niederlande und die Ethik des Sterbens“. op. cit. pp. 36-54; Henk A. M. ten Have, Jos V. M. Welle. “Euthanasie - eine gängige medizinische Praxis: Zur Situation in den Niederlanden“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993): pp. 63-72; John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands in the Light of The Remmelink Report amd The Van Der Maas Survey“. op. cit.; John Keown. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope?“. op. cit.; Bert Gordijn. "Die niederländische Eutanasie-De­batte". pp. 29-50 in: Walther Gose, Herbert Hoffmann, Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Ed.). Aktive Sterbehilfe? Zum Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Patienten. Paulinus: Trier, 1997; Brian Clowes. “Die Tatsachen des Lebens“. Human Life International: Front Royal (VI), 1997 (HLI Wien: hli-aut@magnet.at, Fax 0043/01/7966529). pp. 76-80 and Herbert Csef. “Aktive Euthanasie heute: Beim psychiatrisch unterstützten Selbstmord ist der Damm längst gebrochen“. Lebensforum No 46 (2/1998) pp. 32-37 = Herbert Csef. “Aktive Euthanasie heute“. pp. 126-138 in: Ingolf Schmid-Tannwald (Editor). “Gestern 'lebensunwert' - heute 'unzumutbar': Wiederholt sich die Geschichte doch?“ W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag: München, 1998 (this version includes literature), see also the outline of a professor of law who supports the jurisdiction of the Netherlands: Peter J. P. Tak. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands“. Leipziger Juristische Vorträge 29. Leipziger Universitätsverlag: Leipzig, 1997. Numerous important contributions can be found in the volume of the Netherlands Movement for the Right of Life: Schreeuw im Leven, Hilmersum (sol.cfl@rainbow.lifenet.nl, Fax 0031/35/6244352). L. P. Dorenbos (Ed.). Euthanasia in the Netherlands and Abroad: Proceedings Three Inter­national Conferences. Schreeuw im Le­ven, Hilmersum, 1998 - enthält die Bücher L. P. Dorenbos (Ed.). Dutch Euthanasia - Worldwide Threat. Schreeuw om Leven: Hilversum, 1996; L. P. Dorenbos (Ed.). The Threat of Euthanasia. Schreeuw om Leven: Hilversum, 1997; L. P. Dorenbos (Ed.). The Continuing Threat of Hilversum. Schreeuw om Leven: Hilversum, 1998.
97Cf. Ruth Doelle-Oelmüller. “Euthanasie - philosophisch betrachtet: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu Argumenten von Spaemann und Singer“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 41-54.
98Derek Humphrey. “Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying“. The Hemlock Society: Eugene (OR), 1991; cf. Hans Schwarz. “Fürsorge für das menschliche Leben“. Evangelium und Wissenschaft No 33 (Apr 1988) pp. 20-34.
99Cf. Loane Skene. “Euthanasie: Die Rechtslage in Australien“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 239-251.
100Cf. Laurence J. O'Connell. “Die Diskussion um aktive Euthanasie in den USA“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 79-82, p. 80 and Dietrich von Engelhardt. “Euthanasie in historischer Perspektive“. op. cit. p. 15.
101So also Laurence J. O'Connell. “Die Diskussion um aktive Euthanasie in den USA“. op. cit. p. 80.
102Ibid. p. 79.
103Cited from Paolo Cattorini, Massimo Reichlin. “Euthanasie in Italien“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 55-62.
104Cf. Patrick Verspieren. “Die Euthanasiedebatte in Frankreich“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 331-338.
105Cf. Erwin Bischofberger. “Die Euthanasiedebatte in Schweden“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 73-77.
106See Henk A. M. ten Have, Jos V. M. Welle. “Euthanasie - eine gängige medizinische Praxis: Zur Situation in den Niederlanden“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 63-72, p. 63.
107P. J. van der Maas, J. J. M. van Delden, L. Pijnenborg. Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life: An Investigation ...“ Health Polity (Amsterdam) 22 (1992) 1+2 (special Issue): 1-262 with following investigations: pp. 27-109 fieldwork of doctors, pp. 113-146 fieldwork of doctors starting from attests of death, pp. 150-174 and statistical analysis over six months made by doctors in praxi.
108P. J. van der Maas, J. J. M. van Delden, L. Pijnenborg. “Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life. op. cit. p. 178.
109Ibid. 179; cf. Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. pp. 39-40.
110Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. p. 40.
111John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands in the Light of The Remmelink Report amd The Van Der Maas Survey“. pp. 219-240 in: Luke Gormally (Ed.). “Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law“. The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics: London, 1994 (further contributions of the author are cited ib. p. 219, annotation 1).
112Henk A. M. ten Have, Jos V. M. Welle. “Euthanasie - eine gängige medizinische Praxis: Zur Situation in den Niederlanden“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 63-72, pp. 64-67.
113Cf. in contrast the better definition: Luke Gormally (Ed.) Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law. op. cit. p. 11) “there is euthanasia when the death of a human being is brought about on purpose as part of the medical care being given him“.
114See esp. the table ibid p. 224.
115Summarized by Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. pp. 41-43; cf. John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands ...“. op. cit. pp. 222-232.
116Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. pp. 44; cf. John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands ...“. op. cit. pp. 232-234.
117Herbert Csef. “Aktive Euthanasie heute: Beim psychiatrisch unterstützten Selbstmord ist der Damm längst gebrochen“. op. cit. (both versions).
118P. J. van der Maas, J. J. M. van Delden, L. Pijnenborg. Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life. op. cit. pp. 57-69+181-182.
119This evidently is proven in John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands ...“. op. cit. pp. 228-233+235-236.
120Dietrich von Engelhardt. “Euthanasie in historischer Perspektive“. op. cit. pp. 23.
121P. J. van der Maas, J. J. M. van Delden, L. Pijnenborg. Euthanasia and other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life. op. cit. p. 65.
122Ibid.
123Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. p. 50.
124So also ib. pp. 49-50 and John Keown. “Further Reflections on Euthanasia in The Netherlands ...“. op. cit. pp. 235-236.
125Cited from Brian Clowes. “Die Tatsachen des Lebens“. op. cit. p. 76.
126Cited from Thomas Fuchs. “Euthanasie und Suizidhilfe“. op. cit. p. 49.
127Ibid. pp. 49-50.
128Bert Gordijn. "Die niederländische Eutanasie-Debatte". Loc cit. p. 47.
129Ibid. p. 50.
130Bert Gordijn. "Die niederländische Eutanasie-Debatte". Loc. cit. p. 49.
131Ibid. p. 47.
132Luke Gormally (Ed.). “Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law“. The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics: London, 1994, the study of a 16-headed commission of 1982 in pp. 7-107 (esp. pp. 51-58 a classical outline of the christian standpoint), the study of 1992 for the British House of Lords 'Submission to the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Medical Ethics' pp. 109-165.
133Outlines of the Christian standpoint: Jochem Douma. “Euthanasie“. Kamper Bijdragen 12. Uitgeverij 'De Vuurbank': Groningen, 1973; John M. Frame. “Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons and Problems“. Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg (NJ). 1988. pp. 67-70; John Warwick Montgomery. “Human Dignity in Birth and Death: A Question of Values“. pp. 153-165 in: (John Warwick Montgomery). Christians in the Public Square. Law, Gospel and Public Policy. Canadian Institute for Law, Theology and Public Policy: Edmonton (CAN), 1996; Norman Geisler, Frank Turek. Legisla­ting Morality. Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? Bethany House Publ.: Minnea­polis (MN), 1998. pp. 179-206; Franz Furger. Ethik der Lebensbereiche. Herder: Freiburg, 19923. S. 124-128; “Euthanasia“ pp. 138-139 in: R. K. Harrison (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics. Thomas Nelson: Nashville (TN), 1987. Cf. the church patriarch’s refusal of euthanasia: Bernhard Schöpf. “Das Tötungsrecht bei den frühchristlichen Schriftstellern bis zur Zeit Konstantins“. Studien zur Geschichte der katholischen Moraltheologie 5. F. Pustet: Regensburg, 1958. pp. 64-71; cf. as an overview: Philipp Schmitz. “Euthanasie - verschiedene Wege ethischer Orientierung in einem christlichen Umfeld“. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik 39 (1993) pp. 27-40. Aus der Sicht von Behinderten und Schwerkranken behandelt Joni Eareckson Tada. Sterben dürfen? Unser Recht zu leben und zu sterben. Ausaat Verlag: Neukirchen, 1995 die Frage der Sterbehilfe.
134See also the contributions against active euthanasia going beyond the Christian view: Anselm Winfried Müller. Tötung auf Verlangen - Wohltat oder Untat? Kohlhammer Philosophie. Ethik Aktuell 3. W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 1997 and Walther Gose, Her­bert Hoffmann, Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Ed.). Aktive Sterbe­hilfe? Zum Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Patienten. Paulinus: Trier, 1997, bes. Gerhard Robbers. "Euthanasie und die Folgen für unsere Rechts­gemeinschaft". pp. 71-88; Udo Schlaudraff. "Zwischen Konsens und Wider­stand". pp. 9-28. (Norbert Hoersters contribution: "Rechtsethische Über­legungen zur Ster­behilfe". pp. 51-70 speaks out for active euthanasia.)
135Brian Clowes. “Die Tatsachen des Lebens“. op. cit. p. 77.
136Cited from “Zeitspiegel“ in Querschnitte 3 (1990) 4 (Okt-Dez): 3.
137Ellinor E. N. Draper. “Birth Control“. pp. 1065-1073 in: The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 30 Vols. Vol. 2. Enyclopedia Britannica: Chicago, 1982 15/9, here p. 1069. Henri van Straelen. “Abtreibung: Die große Entscheidung“. Josef Habbel: Regensburg, 1974. At p. 32 he wrote already in 1972 after an outline of the situation in Japan: “Die Tatsache, daß die Abtreibung an die Stelle der Empfängnisverhütung getreten ist, kennzeichnet auch die Lage in den anderen Ländern“. („The fact that abortion replaced birth control is also true for the situation of the other countries.“).
138Norman Geisler, Frank Turek. Legislating Morality. Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? Bethany House Publ.: Minneapo­lis (MN), 1998. p. 157; Robert Bork. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. Regan Books: New York, 1996. pp. 180-181 und William J. Bennett. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators. Schuster & Schu­ster: New York, 1994. p. 69.
139Mechthild Bock. “Internationale Verbindungen“. pp. 182-197 in: “Frauen gegen den Paragraph 218 ... (Ed.). “Vorsicht 'Lebensschützer'! Die Macht der organisierten Abtreibungsgegner“. Konkret Literatur Verlag: Hamburg, 1991. p. 185.
140Cf. Martin Kriele. “Die nicht-therapeutische Abtreibung vor dem Grundgesetz“. Schriften zum öffentlichen Recht 625. Duncker und Humblot: Berlin, 1992. p. 68.
141All to find in the paragraph “Die Verarbeitung einer Abtreibung durch die Väter“ in: Jochen Beuckers, Pantaleon Fassbender (Ed.). “Psychische Folgeschäden nach Schwangerschaftsabbruch“. Aktion Lebensrecht für alle: Augsburg/Bonn, 1991. pp. 76-77. Correctly there is noted that the last figures should be significantly higher in Germany.
142Cf. Thomas Schirrmacher. “Evolution and Sexual Revolution“. Christianity and Society 7 (1997) 1 pp. 9-12.
143Medical Tribune No 38/1989.
144We have chosen the old figures because the announced numbers since the recent alteration of the paragraph 218 are so remnant and unreliable that they are of no use.
145Carsten Hobohm writes in: Zeitspiegel in Querschnitte 4 (1991) 2 (April-June: 2 “In 1990 78.808 abortions have been announced to the Statistisches Bundesamt for the territory of the old West German Federation. This amounts to roughly one third of the true figure as it can be reckoned e.g. by the billing to the social assurance. Anyhow the figures of the Statistical Bundesamt are able to reflect a rough picture of the common situation. 89.1 % of the announced abortions can be counted to the so called social indication. 65 cases were due to criminological indication, i. e. the child was begotten by rape. About one half (47.7 %) of the women that have aborted are married, 43.1 % unmarried, the rest widowed or divorced. The majority of them (53.0 %) don’t have children yet. Only 2.2 % of aborting women were younger than 18 years.“
146Jähnke. “Sechzehnter Abschnitt: Straftaten gegen das Leben“. pp. 1-124 (comment to paragraphs 218-220) in: Hans-Heinrich Jeschek, Wolfgang Ruß, Günther Willms (Ed.). Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar: Großkommentar. Vol. 5: Paragraphs 185 to 262. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 1989 10, here p. 9 (enhancement added by the author).
147Ulrich Eibach. “Vorgeburtliche Diagnostik und Leidbewältigung: Wieviel genetische Diagnostik können wir verantworten?“ Evangelium und Wissenschaft No 33 (Apr 1988) pp. 4-19, here p. 9.
148Ib. p. 12.
149Cf. C. Everett Koop. “Unterwegs nach Ausschwitz“ (1977). pp. 31-51 in: Ronald Reagan. Recht zum Leben: Abtreibung und Gewissen. Hänssler: Neuhausen, 1994, esp. p. 45.
150Ulrich Eibach. “Vorgeburtliche Diagnostik und Leidbewältigung: Wieviel genetische Diagnostik können wir verantworten?“, op. cit. p. 5.
151A well documentation aiming against 'Pro Familia' can be found in Thomas Friedl. “pro familia - ? Eine Dokumentation“. Junge Union Deutschlands, Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz. Mainz, (about 1990/91); cf. the critics of 'Pro Familia' from the juristic view: Martin Kriele. “Die nicht-therapeutische Abtreibung vor dem Grundgesetz“, op. cit. pp. 66-74.
152Martin Kriele. “Die nicht-therapeutische Abtreibung vor dem Grundgesetz“. Schriften zum öffentlichen Recht 625. Duncker und Humblot: Berlin, 1992. p. 67.
153Cf. Ibid. p. 68.
154E.g. Ibid. p. 71.
155E.g. Ibid. pp. 69-70.
156Rüdiger Lautmann. “Die Lust am Kind: Portrait des Pädophilen“. Ingrid Klein: Hamburg, 1994.
157Rüdiger Lautmann. “Unterscheiden sich Pädophilie und sexuelle Kindesmißhandlung“. Pro Familia Magazin 3/1995 pp. 9-11.
158Atina Grossmann. “Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Reform 1920-1950“. Oxford University Press: New York, 1995; concerning the efforts (Einsatz) of leading eugenicists for abortion since 1920 until the lift on abortion (Freigabe der Abtreibung) see: Mary Meehan. "How Eugenics Birthed Population Control". Human Life Review 24 (1998) 4: 76-89.
159“Sanger, Margaret“. pp. 678-679 in: Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon (in 25 Volumes). Vol. 20. Bibliographisches Institut: Mannheim etc., 1977 9, here p. 678. The best scietific biography is David M. Kennedy. “Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger“. Yale University Press: New Haven/London, 1970.
160Cf. the excellent study of George Grant. “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood.“ Wolgemuth & Hyatt. Brentwood (TE), 1988, as well as Randall A. Terry. “Accessory to Murder. The Enemies, Allies, and Accomplices to the Death of Our Culture“. Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentweoof (TN), 1990. pp. 23-31 and Gene Edward Veith. “Modern Facism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview“. Concordia: St. Louis (MO), 1993 pp. 108-109 (ib. p. 173, Annot. 38 further literature is given that deals with Sanger’s nazi alliances).
161Mechthild Bock. “Internationale Verbindungen“. op. cit. Bock criticizes, that Pro Familia so far “keeps silent to these reproaches and discusses it at best internally“ (Ibid.).
162David M. Kennedy. “Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger“. Yale University Press: New Haven/London, 1970. p. 117 (cited from a speech of Sanger she held 11 Feb.1923).
163Ibid. p. 109-112.
164Ibid. p. 112.
165Ibid. p. 113.
166Ibid. p. 113+115+118.
167Ibid. p. 118.
168Ibid. p. 113-117.
169Cf. with Harmsen critically Heidrun Kaupen-Haas. “Eine deutsche Biographie - der Bevölkerungspolitiker Hans Harmsen“. pp. 41-44+201-202 in: Angelika Ebbinghaus et al. (Ed.) “Heilen und Vernichten im Mustergau Hamburg: Bevölkerungs- und Gesundheitspolitik im Dritten Reich“. Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1984; Sabine Schleiermacher. “Hans Harmsens hierarchisches Gesellschaftsmodell: Auszüge einer sozialdarwinistischen Familienpolitik“. pro familia magazin 1/1990 pp. 28-29 and Thomas Friedl. “pro familia? Eine Dokumentation“. Junge Union Deutschlands, Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz. Mainz, n.d. (about 1990/91). pp. 8-14 (with figures).
170Ibid. p. 8.
171Hans Harmsen. Bevölkerungsprobleme Frankreichs unter Berücksichtigung des Geburtenrückgangs als entscheidender Wirtschaftsfaktor. Diss.: Univ. Marburg, 1926; Hans Harmsen. Bevölkerungsprobleme Frankreichs unter Berücksichti­gung des Geburtenrückgangs. Kurt Vowickel Verlag: Berlin, 1927; concerning this and the first doctoral thesis of 1924 see: Heidrun Kaupen-Haas. "Eine deutsche Biographie - der Bevölkerungspoli­tiker Hans Harmsen". Loc. cit. p. 41.
172Hans Harmsen. Praktische Bevölkerungspolitik: Ein Abriß ihrer Grundlagen, Ziele und Aufgaben. Fachschriften zur Politik und staatsbürgerlichen Erziehung. Junker und Dünnhaupt: Berlin, 1931. p. 79.
173Thomas Friedl. pro familia? Loc. cit. p. 9.
174Concerning abortion of ??? (Fremdrassigen) and handicapped in the Third Reich see: Michaela Garn. "Zwangsabtreibung und Abtrei­bungsverbot". pp. 37-40+201 in: Angelika Ebbinghaus u. a. (Ed.) Heilen und Vernichten im Mustergau Hamburg: Bevölke­rungs- und Gesundheitspolitik im Dritten Reich. Kon­kret Literatur Verlag: Hamburg, 1984.
175In Hans Harmsen. Praktische Bevölkerungspolitik. loc. cit. pp. 33-36+87-88 he speaks out against it: "Die Ach­tung vor dem Schöpfungsgebot aber verbietet uns die Vernichtung eines mögli­cherweise erbbelasteten Kindes ebenso wie die Vernichtung le­bensunwerten Lebens." („But the respect of the creation imperative (Schöpfungsgebot) prohibits the destruction of a child that is possibly genetically harmed as well as the destruction of life not worth of living.“), p. 87.
176In 1931, he already quotes the bill on the mix of races of the NSDAP of March 12, 1930 ("Gesetz zum Schutz des Volkes"; „Law for the protection of the people“) without any comment. In: Hans Harmsen. Praktische Bevölkerungspolitik. loc. cit. pp. 38-39. More writings of Harmsen before 1932 can be found in ibid. p. 94. In ibid. p. 32, Harmsen demands a law that forces every couple to have three children. If „insignificant inferiority (Minderwertigkeit) of the offspring“ are to be expected, they are not allowed to have more children than that - other that all the „valuable“ (wertvolle) couples that do.
177Hans Ludwig Friedrich Harmsen. Wichtige Entscheidungen zur Durchfüh­rung des Gesetzes zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses. Schriftenreihe des Evangelischen Gesundheitsdienstes 6 (ed. by Hans Harmsen). Verlag Dienst am Leben: Berlin-Grunewald, 1936; Hans Harmsen (Ed.). Das Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nach­wuchses. Schriftenreihe des Evangelischen Gesundheitesdienstes. Dienst am Leben - Beiheft 3. Verlag Dienst am Leben: Berlin-Grunewald, 1935; see: Hans Harmsen. "Die Bedeutung der erblichen Krüppelleiden in der Volksgesundheitspflege." Gesundheitsfürsorge 8 (1936): 203-208, also as offprint (Sonderdruck): Schriftenreihe des Evangelischen Gesund­heitesdienstes 4. Verlag Dienst am Le­ben: Berlin-Grunewald, 1936. p. 208. Harmsen even recommends to include the sterilization of cripples in certain cases which the law does not cover.
178Comp. Hans Harmsen (Ed.). Das Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nach­wuchses. Loc cit. p. 64-68 ("Mitteilungen der Aus­kunftsstelle des Central-Ausschusses für Innere Mission"), Statement of July 13, 1934 of the "Ständige[n] Ausschuß für Fragen der Rassenhygiene und Rassenpflege". It states on p. 64: "... haben sich alle Stellen der I. M. nachdrücklichst für die Durchführung des Gesetzes zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses vom 14. Juli 1933 einzusetzen und alle er­lassenen Anordnungen und Vorschriften genauestens zu befolgen." („All offices of the I.M. have to support the passing of the law for the precautions against offspring with hereditary diseases of July 14, 1933 and they are to strictly follow all passed regulations.“).
179The most detailed description in: Heidrun Kaupen-Haas. "Eine deutsche Biographie - der Bevölkerungspolitiker Hans Harmsen". Loc. cit. p. 41-42.
180So unisono representents of ‘pro familia’, e.g. Sabine Schleiermacher. “Hans Harmsens hierarchisches Gesellschaftsmodell“. op. cit. p. 28, and objectors, e.g. Thomas Friedl. “pro familia?“ op. cit. p. 10.
181Heidrun Kaupen-Haas. “Eine deutsche Biographie - der Bevölkerungspolitiker Hans Harmsen“. op. cit. p. 44.
182Ibid.
183Presumably by the article of Heidrun Kaupen-Haas. “Eine deutsche Biographie - der Bevölkerungspolitiker Hans Harmsen“. op. cit.; vgl. Sabine Schleiermacher. “Hans Harmsens hierarchisches Gesellschaftsmodell“. op. cit. p. 28.
184Cf. Ibid. and Thomas Friedl. “pro familia?“ op. cit. p. 12.
185Hermann Schubnell (Ed.). “Alte und neue Themen der Bevölkerungswissenschaft: Festschrift für Hans Harmsen.“ Schriftenreihe des Bundesinstituts für Bevölkerungsforschung 10. Boldt-Verlag: Boppard / Rhine, 1981 (Harmsen indeed had become 80 years in 1979).
186Sabine Rupp, Karl Schwarz. “Laudatio“. pp. 9-10 in: Ibid.
187Ferdinand Oeter. “Der ethische Imperativ im Lebenswerk Hans Harmsens“. pp. 11-16 in: Hermann Schubnell (Ed.). “Alte und neue Themen der Bevölkerungswissenschaft“. op. cit. and Martin Kornrumpf. “Erste bevölkerungswissenschaftliche Untersuchungen nach der bedingungslosen Kapitulation des Deutschen Reiches 1945“. pp. 141-149 in: Ibid., here pp. 141-142.
188Susanne Lux. “Was können wir von der ProLife-Arbeit in den USA lernen?“. Querschnitte 11 (1998) 1: pp. 1-4.
189A list of addresses of German groups for the Right-to-Life included local groups was published 1998 by the Meeting of Christian Groups for the Right-to-Life and the Cooperation Right-to-Life as a pamphlet “Rat für Schwangere und Familien sowie Frauen nach der Abtreibung“ (e.g. of kaleb@kaleb.cid-net.de or info@ead.de, fax 0049711/2364600).
190Comp. the campaign www.tim-lebt.de and Gisela Klinkhammer. "'Ein für Ärzte bedrüc­kendes Dilemma'". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 96 (1999) 20/21. pp. C-939-C-941.
191Cited from Wolfgang Furch. “Was eint die neue RU-486-Koalition?“. Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht 7 (1998) 2 p. 21.
192As an exception in the german speaking countries are to mention the evangelical ethics, e.g. the ethics of my professor Georg Huntemann. “Biblisches Ethos im Zeitalter der Moralrevolution“. Hänssler: Neuhausen, 1996 and logically my own ethics (Thomas Schirrmacher. “Ethik“. 2 Vols. Hänssler: Neuhausen, 1994. 1800 p. (a revised edition is planned for 1998). I am greatful for further hints.
193See in “Wieviel Wissen tut uns gut? Chancen und Risiken der voraussagenden Medizin“ Gemeinsames Wort der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland zur Woche für das Leben 1997. Gemeinsame Texte 11. Kirchenamt der EKD: Hannover & Deutsche Bischofskonferenz: Bonn, 1997.
194See Ibid. p. 30 the list of colleagues.
195Ibid. p. 10.
196Ibid. p. 13.
197Ibid. p. 15.
198Ibid. p. 15.
199“Genetics and the Quality of Life“. Study Encounter Nr. 53. 10 (1974)1. pp.1-26.
200Ibid. p. 18.
201Ibid. pp. 8, 9,18 and 22.
202Ibid. p. 8.
203Article “Zeitspiegel“ in Querschnitte 2 (1989) 3 (July-Sept): 3.
204See Michael Gante. “Paragraph 218 in der Diskussion: Meinungs- und Willensbildung 1945 - 1976“. Droste: Düsseldorf, 1991. p. 76 for Karl Janssen. "Die Unterbrechung der aufgezwungenen Schwangerschaft als rechtliches und theologisches Problem". Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik 4 (1960): pp. 65-72.
205Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “Ethik“. (Chr. Kaiser: München, 1949). p. 118. Cf. for the refusal of abortion by Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth in Henri van Straelen. “Abtreibung: Die große Entscheidung“. Josef Habbel: (Regensburg, 1974). pp. 70-71.
206Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “Ethik“ op. cit. pp. 118-119. Bonhoeffer refused abortion even if the mother’s life is endangered. See Ibid. p. 119, Note 6.
207Karl Barth. Kirchliche Dogmatik. Studienausgabe Bd. 20: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung III, 4 §§ 55-56: Das Gebot des Schöpfers 2. Teil. (Theologischer Verlag: Zürich, 1993 (1951): p. 475. About abortion in general see pp. 473-482.
208Ibid. p. 477.

Return to Contra Mundum Root Page

11-3-99 tew