AbstractIn this chapter, I evaluate from a philosophical perspective the ongoing discussions in the Belgian civil society triggered by the euthanasia law and its implementation in end-of-life care since 2002. I challenge the idea that the so-called normalization of euthanasia is an established fact and I contend that the ongoing discussions on the possible abuses of the law and the practice of euthanasia are unavoidable. I see three reasons for this. First, in contrast with what some think, euthanasia can never become a “normal” therapeutic option, that could be integrated in standard medical practice. Euthanasia is, by its very nature, a transgression of a fundamental moral taboo and will thus always, however liberal the law might be, challenge the conscience of some physicians. Secondly, because of its transgressive meaning, every act of euthanasia can always be contested by family members or the larger society. This is the case when euthanasia is given to patients who are not terminally ill (such as psychiatric patients), but also when a physician performs euthanasia in an undignified and negligent way. Thirdly, the very existence of the law puts pressure not only on patients and physicians but also the larger society. By making euthanasia into a symbol of the good death, a whole society loses its sensitivity for the intrinsic transgressive nature of euthanasia and creates all sorts of strategies to mask the wavering of conscience that results from this collective negligence. There is no way, so I conclude, to avoid this. The wavering of conscience will continue to haunt the end-of-life care in Belgium as long as the law on euthanasia remains as it is.
When Conscience Wavers. Some Reflections on the Normalization of Euthanasia in Belgium
