We don't want to engender a culture where "mercy killings" become expected Euthanasia is a slippery slope, writes Rita Panahi. YOU can't choose your family but you can choose to leave them behind. Tragically for Belgian Nathan Verhelst he never moved on from the pain inflicted by a toxic mother and upbringing. Born Nancy into a family that wanted another son he felt rejected and unloved. "I was the girl that nobody wanted," Mr Verhelst told Belgian newspaper, Het Laatste Nieuws. Nancy became Nathan and underwent hormone therapy, as well as a double mastectomy and surgery to construct a penis in 2012. Not surprisingly the procedures weren't the panacea he sought and he feared looking like a "monster" after the operations failed to live up to his expectations. "I was ready to celebrate my new birth," Mr Verhelst said. And so last week, at only 44 years of age, his life ended in a Brussels hospital when he was euthanised for "unbearable psychological suffering." To many people, outside of Belgium, it looked an awful lot like state-sanctioned suicide for the depressed. It's the slippery slope that many of us who support euthanasia in principle fear could occur if the practice became legal in Australia. Locally support for voluntary euthanasia is strong with polls showing between 70 to 85 per cent in favour of its introduction. In principle it's hard to find a reason not to allow a person who is in chronic pain and suffering a terminal illness to end their life. However, what appears compassionate in theory can have sinister implications in practice. A policy designed to give comfort to the terminally ill to die with dignity may be used by those who fear becoming a burden on their families. Worse still, unscrupulous family members more interested in their share of the inheritance than the long term care of a partner or parent could play a part in the decision. In the countries where euthanasia is legal, the boundaries are being continually pushed and policing the practice is highly problematic. Nathan Verhelst's case was not an isolated incident. "Unbearable psychological suffering" is frequently cited as a reason for euthanasia in Belgium with an average of one death a week. The doctor, Wim Distelmans, who oversaw Nathan's death, was also responsible for administering lethal injections to 45-year old twins, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, last December. The brothers who lived and worked together as cobblers were born deaf and feared losing their independence after learning they were going blind. They were young, not terminally ill or in pain, but nevertheless were granted their request to die together. The twins bought new suits and shoes for the occasion and waved goodbye to their parents and older brother as they were administered a deadly cocktail of drugs. Not only are the laws around euthanasia being continually broadened in Belgium, the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Luxembourg, it is evident that policing these laws is extremely difficult. A study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2010, showed that nurses were routinely operating beyond the legal margins of their profession and administering life-ending drugs despite the legislation requiring a doctor to perform the task. But far more worrying was that almost half of the nurses who took part in ending a patient's life admitted there was no explicit request or consent from the patient. You might think that all this would motivate the Belgians to tighten euthanasia laws but instead the ruling Socialist party is seeking to extend the legislation to allow the "mercy killing" of children and dementia patients. It seems absurd that children who cannot legally drink, vote or drive could make the decision to end their own life but there is every chance that the proposal will become law enabling a minor to be euthanised if they are judged to be 'capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate'. In the Netherlands, where children as young as 12 can be euthanised, the Royal Dutch Medical Association has called for a parent's suffering to be taken into account in determining whether a newborn should be euthanised - that is the suffering of a third party could contribute to a life being ended. Euthanasia figures have soared in both Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years. There were 1432 cases in Belgium last year, an increase of 25 per cent from the previous year. In Holland there were 4188 people euthanised in 2012 accounting for 1 in 30 deaths. The Benelux enthusiasm for euthanasia should serve as a stark warning to Australians; we don't want to engender a culture that devalues the lives of the infirm, elderly, disabled or the clinically depressed. A culture where "mercy killings" become the expected outcome for those considered a burden on society. Nathan's death didn't cause much of an uproar in Belgium where euthanasia is so normalised that it now accounts for 1 in every 50 deaths. Two days after he died, Nathan's mother confirmed that she had all but rejected him from birth and did not mourn his death. When I saw Nancy for the first time, my dream was shattered. She was so ugly," the unnamed mother told the same newspaper that had interviewed Nathan hours before his death. Her death does not bother me. I feel no sorrow, no doubt or remorse. We never had a bond.