Comment (24)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiThe price for opposing euthanasia
The Grand Duke of Luxembourg is to be stripped of his executive veto after refusing to rubber-stamp a euthanasia law.
The cynical epitaph for the rakish King Charles II of England -- "Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King, Whose word no man relies on ; Who never said a foolish thing, And never did a wise one." -- sums up most republicans' feelings towards constitutional monarchs. Palatial accommodation, fabulous salaries, gorgeous clothes, jetsetting, handshakes with everyone from Bono to Barack – all this just to sign a few laws tossed across a desk by the government of the day.
However, 53-year-old Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg is made of different stuff. He has just precipitated a constitutional crisis in his tiny (population 470,000) realm by refusing to grant royal assent to a law authorising euthanasia -- "for reasons of conscience".
Back in February the Luxembourg parliament voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, copying the pioneers in this dark trend, neighbouring Belgium and the Netherlands. The law would let doctors kill the terminally ill if they asked repeatedly and had the consent of two doctors and a panel of experts. Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, strongly backed the bill, even though it was opposed by his own party, the Christian Social People's party. It narrowly passed, by a vote of 30 to 26, thanks to support from Socialists and Greens.
The Grand Duke's refusal is nearly unprecedented in his nation's politics. "I understand the Grand Duke's problems of conscience," Mr Juncker declared. "But I believe that if the parliament votes in a law, it must be brought into force."
A streak of moral sensitivity seems to run in the Grand Duke’s family. In a remarkably similar case in 1990, his uncle, King Baudouin I of Belgium, also refused to sign a law legalising abortion. He abdicated for two days while the measure passed through Parliament.
The constitutional deadlock has been resolved by changing the constitution: the Grand Duke will be stripped of his constitutional veto. Before the Parliament votes on the third reading of the euthanasia bill, it will alter article 34 of Luxembourg’s constitution. From then on the Grand Duke will not actually sanction new laws, but merely enact them. Exercising his conscience has cost Henri and his successors a precious traditional prerogative.
Was it worth it?
According to the classic analysis of the 19th century English journalist Walter Bagehot, a constitutional monarch has three rights, "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn" – but not the right to obstruct the government’s purpose. And a monarch who refuses to promulgate legislation is all but unheard of.
But, for all that, a monarch is a man whose conscience is a public good. His subjects will assume that if he signs a piece of legislation, he must have seen no fundamental evil in it, nothing that fatally undermines human dignity. As the head of state, he inevitably is regarded as a model of civic virtue. One of the great benefits of a monarchical system, Bagehot argues, is that it makes the ideals and working of government intelligible to the common man. A monarch without virtue undermines the institution.
So the Grand Duke cannot not decline personal responsibility for allowing fellow citizens to be killed by doctors, no matter how much political pressure is applied. A Man For All Seasons, Robert Bolt’s play about Thomas More, illustrates this this point. One of his old friends asks More why he would not sign the Oath of Supremacy: "Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!" And More replies, "And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"
Local politicians believed that he should have rubber-stamped the law, since he is just another cog in the political machine. But even a Grand Duke is a man, not a machine. Had he sanctioned the euthanasia bill, his fellow citizens could easily have thought that euthanasia is consistent with democracy, solidarity and human dignity. But it is not. On the contrary, legalised euthanasia abandons the sick and dying at the most vulnerable moments of their life. It cheapens human life and corrupts the medical profession. It has immense potential for abuse.
Developments throughout the Western world in the last few months have shown that respect for conscientious objection is under threat. After 40 years of idolising whim and caprice masquerading as conscience, the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Governments are trampling on consciences even though they have been shaped by an objective moral law, not personal preference. Countering this trend takes courage. Luxembourgers should be proud that their constitutional monarch is a man who refuses to become a constitutional mannequin.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
This article is published by Michael Cook, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
I admire the strength of the Grand Duke’s character. He stood up to what he believed is wrong, and stand up for the believes he chose to believe.
Pity, though, that some governments are so intent on passing controversial legislation such as this that they would go as far as undermining a monarch’s veto! They ought to look their own thoughts, and see for themselves what needs to be reconsidered. Governments around the world seem to be so at haste in introducing controversial, life-ethical reform bills that they have not stopped to think about the issue seriously.
If this haste is not slowed soon, we may be looking at a world political, social and moral crisis. Politics has never seemed so fragile before.
I support the Grand Duke Henri 100% plus, plus, plus!!! In one of his talks the late Father Malachi Martin lamented that the lack of powerful princes whose duty is to protect us, their loyal subjects. In Henri of Luxembourg aka Henri of Bourbon-Parma we now have a true son of Saint Louis. Like his uncle the holy King Baudouin, the Grand Duke has sought to defend the very lives of his subjects.
I agree wholeheartedly with Michael Cook’s comments.
Irena Uderska
Hongera!( Congratulations) to the Grand Duke of Luxembourg for the noble act. Here in Kenya we are in some sort of a race to enact a Law on Reproductive Health and in it abortion will be legalised and who knows what will follow this one. I only wish our parliamentarians would follow his example.
Superb example for all. Only hope that the others have enough guts to do the same!
What an example to us all! This is the stuff saints are made of. When it comes to moral issues, we cannot afford to sit on the fence. Kudos to the grand duke! I would be proud to have such a leader.
If we had more men of principle and conscience ruling the world like the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, this world would be a better place to live in. May God bless him and his family for the great example he has given the world. He stood up unshaken, at any cost, for what he believes is an important moral issue. Life is precious and should be treated with dignity and respect, only God decides when each one of us returns to Him. This is not for men to decide. Wish the Duke could know how proud we are of him.
Yes, people who are prepared to stand against the tide (of moral relativism and amoralism, which rule our world) are very few; would that there were more. I’m not one of the many who bash the (British) monarchy, but sometimes I can’t help feeling that the Queen/royal family could have done more to prevent (or at least reveal, display) the moral decline and fall of our former civilisation; Prince Charles’s concerns, after all, are basically those which are trendy and likely to get ready public support (ok, not from politicians, in many cases). I sometimes think that if only one real “celebrity” or national hero (sporting, pop music, films, whatever) stood out against the abortion holacaust, and revealed it as it is, then there would be hope ... but there seems to be no one ... Will not God raise up just one real leader of moral worth, in this darkness? We’ll have to pray more.
Just a possible correction: according to some sources (sanctepater.blogspot, spiegel.Online, etc), “Luxembourg’s Prime Minister,” didn’t “strongly backed the bill, even though it was opposed by his own party, the Christian Social People’s party”, instead he opposed it too. What he didn’t accepted was that the grand duke could block a legitimate law approved by a parliament majority.
If this is true, the Grand Duke isn’t paying “the price for opposing euthanasia”, is loosing executive power because Luxembourg discovered there is no such thing as “rubber-stamp” approvals.
I think these might speak volumes of the moral and ethical stance of both players in this drama, the Grand Duke for all the reasons already commented here, and Mr Junkers, who is frequently flirted for the head of the EU commission, for not using the convenient ducal block in favor of his own convictions, but instead believe the majority will of the people (represented in the parliament) should have primacy… even if he is himself in the opposing side of that will. And since I read the palace isn’t going to oppose the constitutional change, I suppose the Grand Duke thinks the same.
Regardless of the issue concerned (euthanasia or murder), I admire him for opposing and standing for his principles. Like what Mr. Cook commented, at least the Monarch didn’t just act like a machine. He acted like a true person with character.
I couldn’t miss the detail that although the law barely passed, the constitutional change to destitute the veto power is expected to pass… if that’s the case, some who voted against the law didn’t agree with Grand Duke actions although in support of their own positions, since constitutional laws are by rule, more difficult to approve than ordinary laws. That or… something here doesn’t add up. The Government’s party was itself against the law, and if intent on it, no way would betray its monarch for backing them in such delicate subject. If the constitutional change passes unanimously, I bet it was co-sponsored or launched by the palace, although announced by the prime-minister. The Grand Duke would simply be recognizing that his conscience cannot have that much power over legal laws produced by a representative parliament.
Just a question: could a case like this happen in Canada or Australia?
I am deeply impressed with the courage of this man, with his putting principle before popularity. What a great example in this day and age.
All the power to you, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg! What a great example of swimming against the current for “reason of conscience”.
hear! hear! it would be a sad state of affairs if people were to detach their decisions and actions from their conscience because of popular opinion!
WE need more people like the Grand Duke in our world. It is a reminder to us that we are truly free and human when we choose the way that is for greater good.
Good on you, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Hope more people will follow this grand example. Somebody, please send His Highness Michael’s article, great read.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >