Noa Pothoven wasn’t euthanised—but it was what she wantedBMJ 2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4142 (Published 12 June 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;365:l4142
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I read with interest Melanie Newman’s paper on the story of Noa Pothoven. The story gives life to the debate about whether physician-assisted euthanasia should be legalized and on what legal options it should be permissible.
In my opinion it was a reasonable ethical practice to deny Noa Pothoven’s claim to have a legal option to physician-assisted euthanasia, since her request for active euthanasia was unsound to be a moral right as her life was given and not chosen. Making that choice denies this human condition and nulls out Pothoven’s autonomy, as the choice would have annihilated her. It was therefore a good decision to withhold her option of euthanasia, but how could she then have escaped from her suffering?
Taking into consideration that she no longer saw life with dignity and worthwhileness, we should have focused our efforts on changing her perception of continued life rather than considering her option for assisted euthanasia. Since no fully rational human being wants to die unless the surroundings threaten the dignity of the continuing existence of the person, Pothoven’s existential concerns could have been valid, but we must realize that they were due to her conception of society, outlook on life and the social environment. Society, medical doctors and especially the loved ones should have put considerable efforts into changing the social attitudes by closeness and affection to give her a recognition of still being valuable as it would have given her a worthy life. This alternative option may not have relieved her suffering completely, but I have argued that euthanasia isn’t a moral right.
Competing interests: No competing interests