Included in the lineup of speakers was René Héman, a euthanasia advocate who leads the pro-euthanasia Royal Dutch Medical Association, and Ralf Jox, a professor at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich who has publicly proposed the legalization of "responsible assisted suicide" as a way to "protect life."
Also featured was Dr. Yvonne Gilli, a gynecologist and Green Party politician who leads the governing board of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s "Sexual Health Switzerland," which counsels women on how to obtain abortions. Dr Gilli contributed to two panel discussions at the conference, one on "Setting the stage: Three perspectives on end-of-life questions," and another on the topic, "Is there a need to change policy?"
In a November 7 message delivered through gay sympathizer Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, Pope Francis appeared to counsel conference participants on the immoral, life-taking nature of euthanasia, yet he also said that "to determine whether a clinically appropriate medical intervention is actually proportionate, the mechanical application of a general rule is not sufficient." He said, "There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved."
Here we see "situation ethics" at work. Since when is the withdrawal of life-giving "medical intervention" a consideration? And since when can "the attending circumstances, and the [murderous or suicidal] intentions of those involved" have any bearing on a decision whether or not a person is to live?
Francis appeared to place human rights over the sanctity of life, saying that "in caring for and accompanying a given patient... the decisions should be made by the patient." He said, "The patient, first and foremost, has the right, obviously in dialogue with medical professionals, to evaluate a proposed treatment and to judge its actual proportionality in his or her concrete case, and necessarily refusing it." In other words, if the patient wants to commit suicide, the doctor is supposed to assist him.
Francis also said in his statement: "It is morally licit to decide not to adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard" which he called "due proportion in the use of remedies." He emphasized that the "withdrawal of overzealous treatment" is "morally qualified," but he didn't at least remind them that the withdrawal of basic food and water is immoral and murderous. Why was this warning not included in his statement, especially when this is often a key issue in end of life episodes?
The worst of it is that Francis fully reposed hope in the fruitfulness of the Vatican conference, saying, "I offer you my cordial good wishes for a serene and constructive meeting." Would he also repose hope for the humane treatment of Jews if Hitler were a keynote speaker at the Vatican?