Grand Duke Henri Refuses to Sign Euthanasia Law: December 2008

[Marengo]

From sun-sentinel.com/Associated Press; the change of the constitution & the Grand Duke's powers seems to have passed in parlament:

Luxembourg lawmakers trim monarch's powers after he refused to sign euthanasia law

LUXEMBOURG (AP) — Lawmakers on Thursday trimmed the powers of Luxembourg's Grand Duke Henri, after the devoutly Roman Catholic monarch said he would not sign a euthanasia bill into law.

The 60-member legislature voted 56-0, with one abstention, to amend the constitution so that in the future Henri will no longer have to "approve" laws adopted by parliament.

The vote avoided a constitutional crisis and cleared the way for Henri to "promulgate" — or formally announce — the euthanasia and assisted-suicide bill after it gets its final legislative approval Dec. 18. As in other parliamentary monarchies, such royal assent is a formality but required for laws to take effect.

Complete article: Luxembourg lawmakers trim monarch's powers after he refused to sign euthanasia law -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

 

[Al_bina]

Well ... not a bad resolution of the crisis. At least, Grand Duke Henri is at peace with himself and avoid compromising his beliefs.

 

[Helena]

The Grand Duke has Earned my respect by this Action.

Why? He achieved nothing at all with his actions apart from creating some drama and he has misused the powers that he has for his personal agenda. To me it shows that Henri is unfit to rule in a secular democracy and it would have been much better if he had been forced to abdicate. His son, who might be more competent than his father, would have gotten a monarchy that would still be in tact.
Can't imagine what Grand Duke Jean must think of this, he signed the abortion law himself and he is no less catholic than his son and he must have had his thoughts about abortion too, but still did not misuse the trust that the constitution gave him. If my own monarch would do a simular thing -no matter the subject- I would turn republican over night, as would much of my country.

 

[Kelly]

I must say the duke is very brave to refuse to do such a thing. Without getting in too much politics and religion I applaud his resistance.

 

[Royal Fan]

Thank you Kelly That in sort was what I Was trying to say

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Well, I think it is rather irresponsible of the Grand Duke. If he does not want to sign a law he should abdicate in favour of his son, if he does not want to abdicate he should sign the law. He can't have it both ways and he is a constitutional monarch after all! Another thing is that king Baudouin reigned for 40 years or so when he was in a strong enough position to refuse to sign, while the grand duke is just getting started and doesn't has a position as respected as his uncle yet (and probably he never will, as king Baudouin was an exceptional monarch).

But Marengo, if he abdicates in favor of his son won't his son be put in the same untenable position since he too would be a Catholic ruler? Euthanasia is forbidden by the Church-very strictly-as is abortion.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has a traditionally close relationship to the Holy See. So unless the Ruling House renounces the Catholic Faith-which is about as likely as snowstorms in California in June! The dilemma would just be handed down to Henri's son. And he would not be likely to betray his devout parents by signing the law.

I can't help but admire Henri's stance, even though he knows it could weaken his power. It's a risk that he apparently feels is worth it.

The Grand Duke would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church if he signed the document and he made a choice to prevent that from happening. As a Roman Catholic he CAN NOT sign it, even if he wanted to without risking the Pope telling him he can not receive sacraments any longer (which is what excommunication is). It's why his Uncle abdicated for a day. He's between a rock and a hard place here. It's his faith or a rubber stamp which apparently means nothing anyway. Easy choice, in my opinion. If Luxembourg wants a Catholic monarch, they had to have understood that would be the decision. It's not like the Church has changed their opinion on this type of issue from when his Uncle abdicated.

This is the way I see it too. Given a choice of risking ex-communication and being denied the Sacraments and signing the bill and having my powers reduced as a consequence?

There IS no choice. A ruler has a right to his conscience just like the most humble citizen(as the late King Baudouin said)

I don think the Vatican will excommunicate the grand duke, it would be very unwise and they haven done so when the Belgian king signed the euthanasia law. Of course they might have tried to influence the Grand Duke, they tried the same on king Juan-Carlos of Spain when the gay-marriage bill was passed. He told them basically to bugger of, adding that he was no king Baudouin (in the sense of not a 'puppet' of the Vatican).

I thought the gay marriage bill was a consequnence of the Socialist government...and I did not realize that HM Juan Carlos was constrained to put his signature of on it?

Any in my opinion the late Baudouin was very far from being a "puppet" of the Vatican. A man or woman is not a puppet because they decide to follow their conscience and live out their Christian Faith to the best of their ability.

In Baudouin's case he made it clear that he was not passing judgement on the women of Belgium for choosing to terminate their pregnancies, but acting in accordance with his OWN conscience-not that of John Paul II-he could not sign this bill. And he did not, and it was finest hour.

It's not force. It's consequences, which are a part of making decisions. Henri chose to violate his trust with the people of Luxembourg to suit his personal religious persuasion. He's not going to be able to do it again, at least, it looks like.

Henri did not violate the trust of his people. He is a man with just as much a right to his conscience as the most humble taxi-driver.

He remained true to himself, and the people should be proud to have such a leader.

If not, they can always decide against a constitutional monarchy and go for a full democracy.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

​

I've been trying for a while, to get my thoughts as organized as I can to post my opinion, but the truth is that I have very mixed feelings, and can't agree with either side 100%, although I lean more in support of the Grand Duke. ​

I do not agree with assisted suicide. I'm a "liberal-catholic" I understand human pain and suffering, it has hit close to home for me, but I could not fathom the idea dying at my will, instead of God's. For me the ideal solution would be to have the government make it easier/more affordable (or whatever) to have relatives make their terminally ill, as pain-free and comfortable as they can those last days, even if it's by sedation, I can only imagine how it feels to be at a funeral knowing your loved one opted to swallow a shot of poison, because one couldn't afford their comfort and maybe they felt they were a burden. My suggestion isn't as black/white and not impossible, especially since it has been expressed by some that the euthanasia process is strict, complicated and lengthy and that patients usually die before they are even approved. You wouldn't have to watch your loved one suffer and the affected would nto have to choose the inevitable.​

Monarchs have always represented the Church and made desicions with religion in the forefront. Parliament represents the State and makes every
day desicions that have nothing to do with religion. They may be separate but the goal is to make the best decision for the citizens. The truth is that Luxemburgers have chosen to have both entities and when both are at odds one opinion should not matter more than the other. If it has become the case however, that Henri's beliefs are getting in the way of Luxemburg's progress, then the monarchy should be abolished forever and just remain a democracy which happens to have a catholic royal family, who's opinion mattered at one point but, no longer. Citizens and Parliament would no longer be inconvenienced by the old-fashioned religious stance of the monarchs and the monarchs can live happily ever as symbols of a by-gone era, with no responsibilities to anyone. Because as some one above mentioned even if the GD abdicates in favor of Guillaume, who's to say Guillaume would sign off on the law to appease Parliament? He may feel just like his father.​

I'm sorry if this post reads like a vichysoise of words, but like i said I am mixed up and tried to articulate my opinion as best I could. I know there was a point somewhere in all my bantering but I can't recall where I made it. Anyway, everyone here has expressed valid points, but that is all they are, I don't feel this to be a win/win situation.​

​

I wish I had read your post FIRST before I went on with my meandering blathering responses to various posters.

This is quite perfect, and I agree with every word. ..I am a Catholic, a bad one in the sense that I do not always go to Mass when I should.

But the Catholic Faith, it's Sacraments and it's Teachings are life itself to me. I can't imagine being forced between my conscience and my duty as a monarch.

I have nothing but good wishes for the the citizens of this beautiful little country and I hope it all turns out well.

 

[wbenson]

I thought the gay marriage bill was a consequnence of the Socialist government...and I did not realize that HM Juan Carlos was constrained to put his signature of on it?

Not putting his signature on it because of his own personal life was probably not even seen as a choice, as he seems to understand his role much better than the Grand Duke does.

Henri did not violate the trust of his people.

I disagree strongly. His job is not to make policy. I'm sure there are plenty of such jobs for him if he wants one.

He remained true to himself, and the people should be proud to have such a leader.

All he's done is cause unavoidable trouble for a lot of people. That's nothing to have pride in.

If not, they can always decide against a constitutional monarchy and go for a full democracy.

I think you mean "republic." Monarchies can be just as much of democracies as any other countries. Unless the monarch decides to do the absolute wrong thing and turn the whole institution on its head, as Henri did. Although if I was in Luxembourg, a republic would be looking pretty good to me right now (and if you know my views on such things, that would be saying something). I would never imagine that my monarch (Elizabeth II) would do something so irresponsible and totally damaging to her reputation and her office in any of her realms. And I imagine that was her thought when she saw this bad news.

I think the Grand Duke and the people are incredibly lucky to have a Prime Minister able to so graciously handle this event and have it end well for everyone.

 

[Lady Claire]

I believe this whole situation ended well. GD Henri didn't have to abdicate or sign the law and I feel as though Luxembourg -IMO- is better off not having to have laws only become valid with the GD signature. It will save future monarchs of Luxembourg from going through another situation like this.

 

[Marengo]

From time magazine, the article is interesting enough, though it calls Henri an Archduke instead of a Grand DUke:

Luxembourg's Monarch Steps Back On Euthanasia Bill

By JEFF ISRAELY Friday, Dec. 12, 2008





The 20th century was not good to Europe's once mighty kings and queens. Old World royals lost most of their monarchical mojo, with their powers now limited to the purely ceremonial, as in Sweden, or to such roles as the Spanish King's command of his country's armed forces. The last absolute monarch left on European soil is Pope Benedict XV.


Like most of his 20th century predecessors, Duke Henri of Luxembourg has played a mostly figurehead role in his country, a sliver of a nation wedged between Germany, Belgium, and France. But an unfolding royal family drama — replete with a papal cameo — has forced the handsome 53-year-old Duke to fall on what remains of his political sword.

Read more here.

 

[aivi]

So this means Prince Guillaume will inherit the position of Puppet Duke, wielding no real power and just be a decoration? How sad.... especially since hes trying so hard to be a well-educated, experienced prince. A king, a duke without real power is rather pointless and pathetic. The next step will be abolishing their monarch completely. Couldnt they have thought of something less drastic than castrating the duke. Duke Henri could have taken his cause to the people, couldnt he?

 

[Marengo]

I believe this whole situation ended well. GD Henri didn't have to abdicate or sign the law and I feel as though Luxembourg -IMO- is better off not having to have laws only become valid with the GD signature. It will save future monarchs of Luxembourg from going through another situation like this.

I don't see how this ended well actually. Nothing was achieved, the GD looks like an idiot, there are less royal perogatives and again we have a monarch here who rather devides than binds, like Queen Sofia last month. Since the binding, neutral role is usually given as one of the main advantages of a monarchy the GD has been very reckless. And again, he achieved absolutely nothing with this stunt.

 

[Lady Claire]

I don't see the point in todays society of having a monarch with so much power that the Grand Duke had. I also believe that the GD not just signing the law was pretty stupid. I agree with Marengo that the GD was reckless. I was saying that it ended well considering what a hole the GD dug himself into, of course we all have our own opinions on the matter.

 

[JulieS]

He remained true to himself, and the people should be proud to have such a leader.

I agree with you, CaliforniaDreamin. Grand Duke Henri was courageous.

 

[wbenson]

Duke Henri could have taken his cause to the people, couldnt he?

That's not his job. If the law is unpopular, it will be to the detriment of the politicians that passed it in the next election. As it stands, he has made the law his problem when before it was only the problem of the politicians involved in its passage. Had he done his job and just signed it, when people think of it his name wouldn't even cross their minds. Now it's the law the Grand Duke refused to sign. It has his name forever linked to it, and not in a good way.

Nothing was achieved, the GD looks like an idiot, there are less royal perogatives and again we have a monarch here who rather devides than binds, like Queen Sofia last month. Since the binding, neutral role is usually given as one of the main advantages of a monarchy the GD has been very reckless. And again, he achieved absolutely nothing with this stunt.

I agree. I have to wonder what exactly he was thinking when he did it. Although I do think the PM handled as best he could for the Grand Duke. I might have just came out and said the change in powers was to keep him from doing something so reckless and childish again.

I agree with you, CaliforniaDreamin. Grand Duke Henri was courageous.

How? He's made other people spend time and energy to clean up a totally avoidable mess he created. That's not courage. That's a tantrum.

 

[MamboQueen]

How? He's made other people spend time and energy to clean up a totally avoidable mess he created. That's not courage. That's a tantrum.

How? He did the right things by his soul knowing that people would call him an "idiot" and accuse him of throwing a "tantrum". Everyone who doesn't AT LEAST respect his position as a human being in this VERY sensitive issue, in my opinion has no real concept of the value of life. A lot of people here are so dismissive about spirituality and the importance of following your soul in order to sleep at night. It's also deplorable that some poster have reduced themselves to calling the GD names. Where are you moderators?

 

[Marengo]

Nobody is dimissive about spirituality, and I read every post in this thread several times. The point being made is that if the GD's consience and his job do not combine in this case. So the solution would be to change the jobdiscription, which happened and made the GD lose one of his perogatives.

Furthermore nobody called the GD an idiot. The post said that the situation made him 'look like an idiot', neither that or the comparison to a tantrum would qualify into the 'calling names' category.

As a moderator of this forum I urge you and others to stay away from statements that acuse anybody who does not agree with the way the GD acted of 'having no real concept of the value of life' and more of those things. I hoped we could discuss this subject without turning it into a religious minefield, but since the above post does drag this thread into that direction further remarks continuing on this path will lead to deletions by the moderators. Again, this is NOT the place for a religious/moral discussion about euthenasia. it is about the Grand Duke refusing to sign a democratic law and losing one of his perogatives consequently. Those are two different things, and I hope that all of us can distinguish that, as most of the posters have done thus far.

 

[aivi]

That's not his job. If the law is unpopular, it will be to the detriment of the politicians that passed it in the next election. As it stands, he has made the law his problem when before it was only the problem of the politicians involved in its passage.

Oh I see. But I dont know about the part about him not being affected by agreeing to such a law. Signing it would be condoning it, that he believed in it. I just think that he as the Duke could have rallied the people on his side to support him, to show that he really was doing it for his people, and so the politicians may be pressured into taking back the law rather than the Duke being pressured to give up his powers.

One more thing, if the President of the United States used his veto powers to reject a bill put forth by Congress, would the president's decision be overridden? So can the presidents role be made ceremonial? That would create a rather dangerous effect to the balance of powers. Anyway, I always thought the Duke had similar powers as a president.

Heres a nice passage from an article sympathizing with the Duke.

"The Grand Duke's stand appears to have achieved nothing except to have lost him and his heirs a constitutional prerogative and to have reduced him to a mannequin. It may, of course have served as an example of moral courage to inspire his country's citizens, but we will probably not know the political results for some time.

Meanwhile, I am reminded of a Punch cartoon published in the First World War, featuring Grand Duke Henri's relative, the King of the Belgians, in which, after German forces have conquered Belgium, the Kaiser tells him: "You've lost everything."

The king replies: "Not my soul." "

(The American Spectator : The Grand Duke's Conscience).

 

[Nitefeatherz]

One more thing, if the President of the United States used his veto powers to reject a bill put forth by Congress, would the president's decision be overridden? So can the presidents role be made ceremonial? That would create a rather dangerous effect to the balance of powers. Anyway, I always thought the Duke had similar powers as a president.

If enough of the legislative body agree to override the Presidential veto than the bill that the President has veto'd can go through even WITH the presidential veto in place. That way one man (even if he is the president,) can't force his view on the citizens of the U.S. (Like the Grand Duke Henri is doing- he feels like he can't agree to the euthanasia law b/c of moral reasons but the majority of the Luxembourgish people seem to support it the law. Really he's between a rock and a hard place.)

It actually keeps more of a balance of power actually- the president can do what he feels is right and necessary and Congress can still put the bill through if it feels it is necessary. Usually, this isn't done- the bill is just modified until everyone agrees.

Really it keeps the checks and balance in balance. After all one man shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for the many- if we let that happen we wouldn't be the U.S.! Hehe.

I seriously doubt the President's role would ever be made ceremonial- he just does too much. He isn't just a part of the legislative body he is also commander of the armed forces, etc.

 

[wbenson]

Signing it would be condoning it, that he believed in it.

It would not be any such thing. That is not how constitutional monarchies work. I do not look through acts passed by the Parliament of Canada and given the royal assent to see how my Governor General and Queen feel, as I know that neither of them would dare use such an inappropriate platform to express their views one way or the other.

I just think that he as the Duke could have rallied the people on his side to support him, to show that he really was doing it for his people, and so the politicians may be pressured into taking back the law rather than the Duke being pressured to give up his powers.

His job is not to put pressure on politicians, though. It would be unacceptable for him to manipulate the people like that.

One more thing, if the President of the United States used his veto powers to reject a bill put forth by Congress, would the
president's decision be overridden?

That is an irrelevant comparison. The President of the United States is not a constitutional monarch. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg, however, is. They have different roles and therefore have different expected conduct with regard to the legislature.

But yes, it might be overridden. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that if the president vetoes a bill, Congress may reconsider it. If two-thirds of both houses vote in favor of it, it becomes a law without his signature.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think it's going to take a distance of time before people can properly judge the wisdom of HRH's behavior.

I remember in 1990 when Baudouin of Belgium was faced with a similar situation many people in the press and public showered opprobrium upon him and and demanded his abdication be made permanent... He was accused of being a religious fanatic ,and of cynical manipulation of his position even here in the United States.

But by the time of his death a few years after the crisis his subjects and much of Europe were hailing him as a hero, a great champion of the sanctity of human life.

I agree with Marengo that there is a world of difference between GD Henri, and HM King Baudouin who had been on the throne for 40 years and who was generally held in very high esteem in and out of Belgium, but I would be very interested to see what the consensus on the GD's after some time has passed.

 

[wbenson]

I think it's going to take a distance of time before people can properly judge the wisdom of HRH's behavior.

I don't see why. He willfully chose to overturn the decision of the legislature. He has decided to attempt to be an executive monarch in a country that does not have an executive monarchy. It doesn't matter what the masses say at that moment (as the proper place for the people to give their voice is an election, not as a mob through their monarch) or if euthanasia is right or wrong. This could have been a bill banning euthanasia forever, and I would disagree with the Grand Duke using his personal opinion at all in deciding whether or not to give assent.

But by the time of his death a few years after the crisis his subjects and much of Europe were hailing him as a hero, a great champion of the sanctity of human life.

Even if he was (which I disagree with), it was not his job to champion political causes. But at least Belgium had plans in place for such an event. Luxembourg did not. The Grand Duke wants other people to clean up after him because he couldn't separate his duty from his private life. That's not heroic.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

I don't see why. He willfully chose to overturn the decision of the legislature. He has decided to attempt to be an executive monarch in a country that does not have an executive monarchy.

At the end of the day regardless of who you are you still need to be able to look in the mirror. The GD obviously felt it was necessary. You don't know that his goal was to be an executive monarch.

Even if he was (which I disagree with), it was not his job to champion political causes. But at least Belgium had plans in place for such an event. Luxembourg did not. The Grand Duke wants other people to clean up after him because he couldn't separate his duty from his private life. That's not heroic.

How did those laws get into place though? At some point, someone must have foreseen, in Belgium, something like this happening...either that or it DID happen, correct? Something like this would have to happen either in real life or be foreseen to be happening that the GD would not sign a bill. IMO the G.D. wasn't acting as an executive monarch so much as forcing the legislative body to find an alternative to forcing him to sign a bill he obviously strongly disagreed with. If he had no alternative than I really can't fault him for following his moral compass over his job. IMO the legislative body should have had something in place to prepare for a happenstance such as this and if they didn't then one of the only ways to make up for the lack of such laws would be for such an instance to occur.

 

[wbenson]

At the end of the day regardless of who you are you still need to be able to look in the mirror.

If the Grand Duke has such insecurities that refusing to do a routine duty makes him feel better, even when the only effect it has is to make life harder for some people for a little while before what he disapproves of happens anyways, then he needs some help in that regard.

You don't know that his goal was to be an executive monarch.

Not the goal, perhaps, but he certainly saw nothing wrong with using it as the means to achieve his ends.

Intent factors less into my scale of determining right and wrong than it does for other people, though. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Most people do, though, even when they do bad things.

How did those laws get into place though?

I think they're there in case the King becomes incapacitated, like in a George III-type scenario. It just happened to be applicable in the case that arose. But in Baudouin's case, he researched what could be done before he acted. He saw a loophole and he asked if it could be used. He didn't just refuse to sign it and let everyone else pick up the pieces.

IMO the G.D. wasn't acting as an executive monarch so much as forcing the legislative body to find an alternative to forcing him to sign a bill he obviously strongly disagreed with.

That's what executive monarchs do. They force the legislature to do things because of their personal whims and desires.

If he had no alternative than I really can't fault him for following his moral compass over his job.

If his private life makes it impossible to do his job adequately, he should consider abdication.

IMO the legislative body should have had something in place to prepare for a happenstance such as this and if they didn't then one of the only ways to make up for the lack of such laws would be for such an instance to occur.

I agree. I still don't think Henri did the right thing. He knows (or should know) full well that signing a law does not mean he approves of it from a moral perspective.

 

[la-miss-du-925]

If the Grand Duke has such insecurities that refusing to do a routine duty makes him feel better, even when the only effect it has is to make life harder for some people for a little while before what he disapproves of happens anyways, then he needs some help in that regard.



Not the goal, perhaps, but he certainly saw nothing wrong with using it as the means to achieve his ends.

Intent factors less into my scale of determining right and wrong than it does for other people, though. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Most people do, though, even when they do bad things.



I think they're there in case the King becomes incapacitated, like in a George III-type scenario. It just happened to be applicable in the case that arose. But in Baudouin's case, he researched what could be done before he acted. He saw a loophole and he asked if it could be used. He didn't just refuse to sign it and let everyone else pick up the pieces.



That's what executive monarchs do. They force the legislature to do things because of their personal whims and desires.



If his private life makes it impossible to do his job adequately, he should consider abdication.



I agree. I still don't think Henri did the right thing. He knows (or should know) full well that signing a law does not mean he approves of it from a moral perspective.

Even if we don't agree with GD Henry we have to say he is very courageous and right ! It's the most important. I don't realy agree with him but I have to admit he is straight, dignified and a great man.

 

[MARG]

Even if we don't agree with GD Henry we have to say he is very courageous and right ! It's the most important. I don't realy agree with him but I have to admit he is straight, dignified and a great man.

In this day and age, when an actor/actress or someone famous for just being famous can be elevated to the status orf hero, outlasted their alotted 15 minutes of fame and have been transmogrified into living "Icons", it is more than noteworthy that the King chose to follow the dictates of his heart and his faith rather than perjure his immortal soul.

No matter whether you agree with his stand or not, you have to admire his integrity.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

If the Grand Duke has such insecurities that refusing to do a routine duty makes him feel better, even when the only effect it has is to make life harder for some people for a little while before what he disapproves of happens anyways, then he needs some help in that regard.

The G.D. actions say nothing about him being insecure. My point was that people are going to criticize regardless of WHAT he does and at the end of the day he has to do what he feels is right regardless. If the government didn't have an alternative to signing the bill that he felt was morally wrong in place, then that's their fault. I wouldn't expect someone who is pro-life to sign a law for pro-choice, either. This is too sensitive an issue for someone to 'just do their job.'

If his private life makes it impossible to do his job adequately, he should consider abdication.

I don't think that statement applies here at all and abdication when subjects as morally divisive as this probably will come up again would be ridiculous. Again, the government should have had something in place beforehand to let him follow what he felt was morally right that didn't involve something so drastic as abdication. If I was signing this law I would feel responsible for the death of whoever chose to use this law. This isn't as cut and dried as you would like to make it.

I agree. I still don't think Henri did the right thing. He knows (or should know) full well that signing a law does not mean he approves of it from a moral perspective.

Yes, but this isn't a normal everyday law is it? It's a law signing into legislature permission for people to commit suicide or permit others to assist in their legalized murder. I could see how many people would have a problem signing such a law. Whoever signs it is effectively signing the death warrants of whoever chooses to use the law.

I work in the veterinary profession- there are times when I agree with euthanasia for a patient, such as when a dog is terminally ill, or in a lot of pain, etc...

but we also are in a quandary when someone such as the man who came in a few months ago to put his puppy to sleep because the puppy was barking (nothing else wrong with the puppy- simply he didn't want the dog anymore, and decided to euthanize the eight week old puppy as he didn't like it barking in his house.)

From a legal point of view, we are supposed to follow the man's choice (as the pet is legally property) and euthanize the puppy. The staff in that case, felt they had to follow what they felt was morally right, not what was legally right, and refused to euthanize the puppy. The dog was adopted out to one of the receptionists and hasn't barked since. I don't disagree with the choice we made that day and it's similar IMO to the choice that G.D. had to make.

Civilians aren't the only ones with moral quandaries....just because he is G.D. doesn't mean the choices get easier. If anything, they get harder when what you are doing is going to affect the population of an entire country (albeit a small one.)

Obviously the G.D. feels very strongly about this or he wouldn't have chosen such an extreme point of view... In any case, it seems to have been dealt with well enough.

 

[wbenson]

No matter whether you agree with his stand or not, you have to admire his integrity.

I don't. Everyone has opinions. Everyone acts on them from time to time. Many times people act on them wrongly.

If the government didn't have an alternative to signing the bill that he felt was morally wrong in place, then that's their fault.

No, it is not. One person is at fault here, and it is the Grand Duke. Royal assent to bills was never about the monarch's personal opinion until now.

I wouldn't expect someone who is pro-life to sign a law for pro-choice, either.

I would. Constitutional monarchs are not publicly pro-life or pro-choice. They remain neutral to the public on all such issues. The only way to remain neutral is to sign all lawfully-passed bills brought to them. Signing it is not a statement of personal approval, but rejection most certainly is a statement of personal disapproval.

This is too sensitive an issue for someone to 'just do their job.'

No it is not. He was presented with a lawfully-passed bill. There are no other issues at hand other than ones that the Grand Duke personally injects into it. It was not about anyone's views on "the sanctity of life" until he chose to make the signing or rejection of a bill about that.

I don't think that statement applies here at all and abdication when subjects as morally divisive as this probably will come up again would be ridiculous.

Whether or not a country should be a constitutional monarchy (as it was) or an executive monarchy (as it is until the legislature gets the constitution changed) is a perfect debate to talk about abdication in.

Again, the government should have had something in place beforehand to let him follow what he felt was morally right that didn't involve something so drastic as abdication.

I don't see why. When people refuse to do their jobs, why do they get to make other people do it for them and keep their jobs? If I decided to go to work, refuse to do my job for any personal reason, and demand that other people do it for me, I would be out of a job and rightly so.

This isn't as cut and dried as you would like to make it.

I disagree. The Grand Duke was presented with a lawfully-passed bill from his legislature. He had one valid choice. He rejected that choice. He is now an executive monarch in a constitutional monarchy. It doesn't matter why he made the choice he did. It is not about how anyone feels about euthanasia.

Yes, but this isn't a normal everyday law is it?

From a constitutional perspective, the only one where Henri should have been looking at it, yes, it is. It was properly passed by the legislature. That means he signs it with no protest. If he can't do that, he's in the wrong job.

I could see how many people would have a problem signing such a law.

So could I, if we are talking about people who should be using their own morals and beliefs to decide what to sign. Constitutional monarchs do not use their personal opinions to make official decisions like this. They act on the advice of their ministers. If we were talking about an executive head of state, such as the President of the United States, I would not oppose such an action on the grounds that personal opinions should be kept out of it.

I work in the veterinary profession- there are times when I agree with euthanasia for a patient, such as when a dog is terminally ill, or in a lot of pain, etc...

but we also are in a quandary when someone such as the man who came in a few months ago to put his puppy to sleep because the puppy was barking (nothing else wrong with the puppy- simply he didn't want the dog anymore, and decided to euthanize the eight week old puppy as he didn't like it barking in his house.)

From a legal point of view, we are supposed to follow the man's choice (as the pet is legally property) and euthanize the puppy. The staff in that case, felt they had to follow what they felt was morally right, not what was legally right, and refused to euthanize the puppy. The dog was adopted out to one of the receptionists and hasn't barked since. I don't disagree with the choice we made that day and it's similar IMO to the choice that G.D. had to make.

I think you're making this debate about euthanasia itself when it has nothing to do with it (at least the one I'm debating in). I don't care one iota about what the subject matter had to do with Henri's decision. It could have been a law banning euthanasia, and I would expect a pro-euthanasia monarch to sign it. It's not about whether people agree with the Grand Duke's view on euthanasia. The fact is that a constitutional monarch used his own personal beliefs to decide what course of action the country would take. That is not done. I do not know where my Queen stands at all on any great moral issues. She does not air her laundry in public as the Grand Duke has done. All Henri has done is to make himself a lightning rod for divisive issues. Before this, nobody knew what he felt about these things. Had he signed it, that state of mystery would have continued (as it is foolish to look at what he signs to find out his personal opinion).

Obviously the G.D. feels very strongly about this or he wouldn't have chosen such an extreme point of view...

I agree. I think that reflects poorly on his attachment to duty, however, and thus on his ability to do his job.

 

[fearghas]

I just think that he as the Duke could have rallied the people on his side to support him, to show that he really was doing it for his people, and so the politicians may be pressured into taking back the law rather than the Duke being pressured to give up his powers.

You're assuming that the majority of people in Luxembourg don't support the law? I have no idea and to be honest I don't think anyone would know. Perhaps the majority do support it? Or perhaps many people don't have an opinion one way or another? Or they might be against it but object to the Grand Duke going against the elected representatives? For the Grand Duke to 'go to the people' would be quite a risk and it could have ended up a complete failure.

 

[Lakshmi]

I happen to disagree with Duke Henri position on euthanasia, but I admire his action. He is brave and strong when he refuses to sign a law that is against his belief. Standing for own belief is not easy especially when most people don't share this belief. I am sure Henri knew that most people in his country supported euthanasia and he was aware that it might make him unpopular, but still he had courage to say "no".
IMO Luxembourgian parliament overacted. They didn't have to change constitution just because this one time duke refused to sign a law. They could find some other solution similarly to Belgium and just pass a law without changing grand duke status. JMO.
Euthanasia is something that most people feel very strong about. I am not surprised that in that particular case Henri decided to show his private opinion. I think that he even should because it is one of the most important matters, regardless if someone shares Henri's belief or not. He showed, he was not just a mannequin. And it makes him a respectable head of state.
Again, bravo for Henri for strength of his character. Especially in our time and date where more and more politicians just worry about being popular and being elected next time.