NAME - SHIVI SHRIVASTAVA

ROLL NO.- 18BAL058

COURTS, CABINET AND COALITION PARTIES: THE POLiTICS OF

EUTHANASIA IN A PARLIAMENTARY SETTING

Author- Bernard Steunenberg

Source- British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 27, No. 4 (1997), pp. 551-571

Publisher- Cambridge University Press

URL- https:/www.jstor.org/stable/194228

Citation- Bernard Steunenberg, Courts, Cabinet and Coalition Parties: The Politics of
Euthanasia in Aa Parliamentary setting, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (Oct. 1997,
10:40), https:/www.jstor.org/stable/194228.
INTRODUCTION

In the article written by Bernard Steunenberg, the issue of euthanasia is discussed in the
Dutch Parliament and an analysis is drawn on the basis of the deliberations between the
legislature and the judiciary. The process of euthanasia that exists today in Dutch is in sharp
contrast to what it existed in early 1980s. After the year 1984, the jurisprudence on
euthanasia has developed rapidly. The article focuses on analysing the decision-making
process on euthanasia keeping in consideration the hypothesis based on the assumptions
about court behaviour. The article discusses in length about the legislative politics and
judicial-legislative interaction. Further a debate has been discussed on the role of courts on
euthanasia.

RESPONSE
Bernard Steunenberg in this article discusses in length about the parliamentary politics in
cabinet and in coalition parties. In the Dutch Parliament most of the people are the members
of political party and hence parties play an influential role in the political decision-making
process. Also, the coalition parties along with the cabinet are very important. A governing
coalition in the parliament is an agreement entered between the parties willingly and
therefore the policy making is based on its consensus.

A parliamentary debate related to euthanasia was started in Dutch in 1978. In the beginning
majority in the parliament was in favour of forming a special committee in the cabinet to
discuss policies related to euthanasia. Later, with the development in jurisprudence on
euthanasia, it became one of the burning political issue. Several rulings and decisions were
made related to euthanasia, some made mandatory to comply with the standards of
performing euthanasia and the other changed the prosecution policy related to it. A ruling
was passed where it was made mandatory to discuss the case of euthanasia in the meetings of
attorneys-general, who will further take the decision to prosecute the physician or not. In
1984, a bill was also submitted in the parliament which claimed to legalise euthanasia in case
of patient suffering from an incurable disease. In subsequent years, more bills were passed
and several deliberations were made but it did not change the code of criminal law and held
the physician guilty for performing euthanasia. But finally, in the year 1993 a bill was
adopted which gave the rights to two ministers to set standards to determine the way in which
a case related to euthanasia should be reported.
The author further elaborated on party position and cabinet government. According to him,
the views of political parties in the parliament differ and are divided over euthanasia. Some
are of the opinion that life is a gift of god and cannot be disposed off so easily. It is crucial to
protect our lives and it is a crime to end a life of a person with or without his consent. And
some consider legalization of euthanasia important for the country. The issue of euthanasia
was a dividing line between political parties in the parliament. But still till the year 1980
parliament was unable to approve a liberal statutory regulation on euthanasia because there
was a domination of Christian Democrats of the governing coalitions.

The bill of 1993 was successful in erasing euthanasia from politics and it mandates the
physician to report the case of euthanasia.

CONCLUSION

In the conclusion, the author is of the opinion that because of the divided opinion between the
political parties in the governing coalition the court can select new statutory interpretations
which cannot be challenged by the legislature. Also, he considers ‘time’ as an important
factor in decision-making process because the preferences and perceptions of political parties
change rapidly. Concludingly it can be said that the courts play a vital role in the process of
decision making. Adding to this, the courts shift a statutory policy to a point that cannot be
changed by the legislature as held in euthanasia case in the Netherlands.