The Particular Danger of Socialist Countries with National Health Care Practicing Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
Introduction
When suicide is
discussed in terms of ‘assisted suicide’, the category of care for the
suffering is brought into focus. One is
no longer speaking of suicide in Roman terms as an honourable death. Nor is one siding with the Greeks in the
virtue for medical practice of doing no harm. As we shall see, we are not
thinking of suicide in the repulsive, Darwinian sense of eugenics. We are now casting the matter of killing in
terms of care.
Assisted suicide
separates ‘killing’ from ‘care’.
Euthanasia involves combining the two: someone else makes the decision—from
a sense of caring—and performs the act. When someone insinuates him or herself
into another’s suicide, one is not simply offering assistance. One is actually abandoning medical and other
forms of care and becoming complicit in the act. Coercion from family, friends, medical
providers, and/or insurance agencies is also possible, and I would say
probable. Once a practice is established
in a culture for suicidal assistance, the culture will develop a narrative that
underlies and undergirds the moral convictions, which will become entrench the
practice in the culture. One of the
questions that must be asked is, ‘Do we really want to be this sort of
people?’, not just, ‘Should this person not be assisted with his or her
suicide?’
As the culture
moves toward accepting assisted suicide, the government can step in to
legislate, provide services for, and enforce the practice. The more centralised and powerful the
government, the more it will engage in social engineering to enforce the
convictions and remove dissidents. This
is one of the major concerns that those opposed to assisted suicide entertain,
especially in socialist countries with national health systems. A society moves from care to complicity to
coercion to enforced convictions.
In this essay,
the relationship between a socialist government’s enforcement of social
convictions and euthanasia will be told with respect to Nazi Germany. (I
previously presented this account in ‘What is Fascism—and Do We Need to Worry
about This in the American Presidential Election?’[1]) The focus here is on the danger of socialist
governments with national health care getting involved in assisted suicide, and
the warning is that this could well end in social reengineering with the
elimination of unwanted fetuses, undesirable populations, and persons no longer
considered useful. If one imagines for a
moment that this is alarmist, I would respond that it is actually a narrative
running throughout history. At times, it
emerges in a horrifying manner, as in fascism. The essay then examines how assisted suicide has
developed in our time in the Netherlands.
Eugenics
and a Strong, Socialist Government
Plato’s Republic
explores the nature of a just society. The result is a highly regulated, socialist republic.
In this philosophical treatise, Socrates
begins discussion by appealing to nature, but most of the work is guided by discussion
of ideal virtues, particularly justice. For
our purposes, we should note how the discussion of an ideal state pursuing certain
ideal virtues leads to the justification of practices that would otherwise be considered
reprehensible. Socrates says, ‘the best men must cohabit with the best women in
as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, [459e]
and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if
the flock is to be as perfect as possible’ (459d-e).[2]
The powerful, ideologically driven state
inevitably turns to social engineering and eugenics.
In the early 20th century, Fascists interested
in establishing a third, great European empire, the Third Reich, embraced the convictions
of social Darwinism and racial hygiene. The socialist state, they
believed, could and needed to help in the progressive evolution of the
allegedly stronger race, dominate and enslave inferior races, and eliminate any
race that undermined this progress. While for Italian fascists,
Ethiopians became the population to dominate in their brutal imperial expansion
in northeast Africa, for Germans, the Jews (as well as some other undesirables)
were the race to eliminate in Europe.
The term ‘eugenics’ (‘good stock’) was introduced
in 1883 by Francis Galton, a brilliant polymath and half-cousin to Charles
Darwin. He was interested in studying hereditary characteristics of
humans in order to explore the ‘practicability of supplanting inefficient human
stock by better strains’.[3] He
defined it as a system designed to advance ‘the more suitable races or strains
of blood’ and as offering ‘a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less
suitable’.[4] His
studies led him to advocate ‘eugenic marriages’.
In 1895, Alfred Ploetz wrote Grundlinien
einer Rassenhygiene (Racial Hygiene Basics), introducing the
language of ‘racial hygiene’. German eugenic practices were systematically implemented
in the German colony of South West Africa (Namibia), with tens of thousands of
Herero and Nama enslaved, incarcerated, brutalized, and executed in a genocidal
programme between 1904 and 1908.[5] Eugenics featured in this
brutality. The German doctor, Eugen Fischer, examined traits (hair
colour, skin colour, and skulls) of mixed-race individuals in Rehoboth, South
West Africa. He also conducted painful experiments on Africans in
the concentration camp, measuring skulls (many being sent to Germany for
further study), removing body parts, injecting them with arsenic, opium, and
other substances, and sterilizing women.[6] With
such ‘scientific’ studies as ‘proof’, Fischer promoted racial purity and
opposed intermarriage among races. Germany outlawed interracial
marriage in its colonies from 1912. (This was also a lasting policy
of the Nationalist government’s Apartheid policies in South Africa.)
This concern for racial health led to the 1933
Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases.[7] (The
state’s control or heavy-handed involvement in health is still defended in
varying degrees in different countries: national control of health insurance
that funds abortion of children with Downs Syndrome, transgender surgeries,
euthanasia, government control of the population during the Covid pandemic,
etc.) The Swiss psychiatrist, Ernst Rüdin, guided the writing of the
1933 law. He was the director of the Psychiatric Research Institute
of Munich and later, in 1935, the director of the German Society of Neurology
and Psychiatry in 1935.[8] This
law permitted sterilization for:
1. congenital mental deficiency, 2.
schizophrenia, 3. manic-depression, 4. hereditary epilepsy, 5. hereditary St.
Vitus dance (Huntington’s chorea), 6. hereditary blindness, 7. hereditary
deafness, 8. serious hereditary physical deformity. [9] ... chronic alcoholism
(paragraph 2).
The individual, a legal representative, the state
physician, or heads of hospitals, nursing homes, and penal institutions could
apply to the eugenics court for the sterilization in these
cases. The state physician and police were required to proceed with
the court’s decision of sterilization, even against the individual’s will, and
were allowed to use force (paragraph 12). The law was signed by
Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Nazi dictator. Its initial purpose was to
sterilize 50,000 Germans per year. In 1939, Hitler signed permission
for a programme that came to be called Aktion T4, which lasted
through 1945 (the end of World War II). T4 authorised
the killing of asylum inmates with mental or physical abnormalities.
The concern for racial purity was particularly
directed against the Jews in Europe’s political and social turmoil after World
War I. The Nuremburg Laws of 1935 forbade sex and marriage between
Jews and Germans and employment of Jewish women under the age of 45 (the Law
for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour) and restricted
citizenship to Germans and those of related blood (the Reich Citizenship Law).
Dr. Gerhard Wagner proposed sterilization of the Jews. In a short
time, the Nazi regime adopted the ‘final solution’ policy of the Holocaust, the
genocide against the Jews. The work of eugenicists went hand in hand
with that of the Nazi’s military, paramilitary, and police
forces. Dr. Otmar von Verschauer, head of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute in Berlin-Dahlem, and Dr. Josef Mengele (the ‘butcher of Auschwitz)
collaborated in the study of race, and the latter experimented on, maimed, and
killed prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Mengele sent
eyeballs, heads, and blood samples to von Verschauer. Dr. Sigmund
Rascher performed his own experiments on prisoners at the Daschau concentration
camp. He would expose prisoners to freezing temperatures and then
try to revive them.
Adolf Hitler makes his argument for national
socialism in his autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, published
in two volumes in 1925 and 1926.[9] In
his chapter on ‘People and Race’, his argument begins with the assumed science
of eugenics advocated by academics, researchers, and
institutes. Importantly, his argument appeals to ‘Nature’ instead of
Communism’s utopian ideals, even though his national socialism is, in fact, a
eugenically defined utopia, an Aryan state.
First, he notes, animals mate with their own
species. Any cross-breeding results in an inferior animal.[10] Second,
Nature allows struggle so that the species improves, as the weaker specimens do
not survive. If this did not happen, the worst would outnumber the
best. Moreover, Nature opposes the mating of a higher with a lower
race. Whereas Hitler initially had different species in mind, his
thoughts have by this time migrated to consideration of different human
races. This was part of the eugenics research, as we have noted,
from the beginning. He says that any mingling of the superior, Aryan
race with others results in the end or inferiority of the
civilization. The superior races’ level of evolution is depressed;
it retrogresses physically and intellectually. He rejects any idea
that man or ideas can conquer Nature. He attributes the erroneous
view, which he calls pacifist, to the Jews. Rather, everything
admirable (‘science and art, industry and invention) is the result of ‘a few
peoples, and perhaps originally of one race’.[11] He
says, ‘The great civilizations of the past have all been destroyed simply
because the originally creative race died out through blood-poisoning.’[12] He
realizes that Japan appears to be an exception, but he claims what is Japanese
is only the outward dress of European scientific and technological
achievement. Hitler takes a further step: the superior, Aryan race
needed to use lower races to advance; it required the subjugation of other
races. This was also for the good of the conquered, since the
superior masters preserved and encouraged civilization.
National
Socialism
To
implement a eugenics programme for society, the government needs to assume
powers associated with socialism. Just as communism (extreme
socialism) requires a strong, militaristic, centralized, one party,
dictatorial, and totalitarian government (the Politburo or executive committee,
the Vanguard of the People, the Party, the strong leader/dictator) to implement
its economic reforms, fascism (extreme nationalism) requires the same for its
goal of racial health. Ideology of either sort justifies centralized
power and the use of brutal force. Freedom of speech is rejected and
replaced with ideological propaganda. The government uses military
and police force to enforce its will on the people. Over against
liberal democracy, government’s purpose is not held to be to defend the
individual against the group, including the government, in matters of speech,
ideas, and private property. It is rather to implement policies of
social reengineering. In the case of national socialism (fascism),
these policies are formed, allegedly, for the protection of the nation, and in
a eugenic national socialism, the state protects the superior
race. In the case of the Nazis, this was the so-called Aryan race.
Nationalism
and socialism arose in Europe as a rejection of monarchies by the
population. With the American and French Revolutions in hindsight,
Europe experienced numerous revolutions in 1848-1849. Earlier, the United
States formed more of a federal republic made up of states, whereas in France a
more nationalistic movement emerged from its violent revolution. The
United States developed as a nation under God whose rights were said to be
God-given, whereas in France, rights were approved by the nation state.
More generally, nationalism identified the nation with the state government,
and so a nation might be made up of various ethnicities —as empires had
been—but what held them together were their borders, citizenship, language, culture,
and laws. Initial rebellion by the people against the monarchies of
Europe was in the interest of greater freedom, better living conditions,
economic improvements, and so forth--concerns more associated with liberal
democracy. Yet nationalism also developed as a means to assure these
rights and meet these concerns.
Nationalism
developed in various regions of Europe. Following the American and French
responses to monarchy at the end of the 18th century, Romanticism contributed
significantly to the rise of nationalism throughout Europe. People
developed a love of the fatherland, their history and heritage, the soil from
which they sprang, and their native languages. A political motivation for
nationalism was a natural response to a people's domination by another country
(as we have recently seen in the break-away of states in former Yugoslavia or
now in Ukraine under attack from Russia). German nationalism developed as
a reaction to Napoleon's empirical overreach throughout Europe, including Germanic
territories. Poland had Russia squeezing it to its east and Germany to
its West. Jean-Jacque Rousseau encouraged Poland to stimulate a
nationalist identity in response. Italy's separate states, often under
foreign control, felt the need to unify as a nation. A pan-Slavic
movement also gained interest in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Toward the
end of the 1800s, German nationalism developed under the guidance of Otto von
Bismarck, who wanted to unite the various German kingdoms or duchies (such as Schleswig-Holstein). This
strengthened the ‘nation’ and tended toward an ethnic and cultural national
identity. The political effort toward this end required a stronger,
national government. The significant alternative to such nationalism
lay in the development of communism during the same
period. While nationalism, socialism, and communism emphasised
a strong government to attain social reengineering, communism envisioned this
in terms of a Marxist, economic reform. German nationalism first
took the form of social democracy. After the First World War, it took its
next steps toward fascism. It moved step-by-step in the 1920s and
1930s toward a eugenic national socialism as Hitler rose to
power. In each aspect of this, it was fully opposed to Christianity,
replacing devotion to God with devotion to the state.
In his
‘People and Race’ chapter in Mein Kampf, Hitler claims
that the Aryan’s greatest quality is not in intellect as such but in ‘his
readiness to devote all his abilities to the service of the community’.[13] We
have here the combined notions of a superior race and its superior social
qualities. Labour for the community, even at the expense of one’s
own happiness, is the first step toward building a truly human
culture. The murderous concentration camps were presented as labour
camps; over the entrance to Auschwitz were the words, ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’
(Labour Makes Free).
An even
higher ideal, Hitler claimed, is sacrificing one’s life for the
community. This ideal is called Pfichterfellung, the performance
of duty in service of the community over against
self-satisfaction. While we might think that this is unnatural—is
not self-preservation a basic instinct?—Hitler relates this back to
Nature. Nature ‘recognizes the primacy of power and strength’.[14]
This concept was already promoted by Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke
Zarathustra, which promotes the notion of an 'Over-Man' who promotes
atheism ('God is dead') and power. Nietzsche developed Arthur
Schopenhauer's concept of the will to live with his own concept of the will to
power.
Applied to
the evolution or development of a great culture, Nazism promoted the glory of
individual sacrifices in one's work and life for the community. In the
previous century, Richard Wagner promoted the national spirit (Volksgeist)
in his operatic dramas, claiming in 'Judaism in Music' (1850) that Jews
only wanted fame and money in their musical endeavours. Friedrich Nietzsche
(in The Birth of Tragedy) initially
(he eventually fell out with Wagner) saw in Wagner's music a return to a
Dionysian (becoming) versus Apollonian (being) worldview. In his notes in
1886, Nietzsche explained this concept:
The
word Apollonian' stands for that state of rapt repose in the presence of a
visionary world, in the presence of the world of beautiful
appearance designed as a deliverance from becoming; the
word Dionysos, on the other hand, stands for strenuous becoming,
grown self-conscious, in the form of the rampant voluptuousness of the creator,
who is also perfectly conscious of the violent anger of the destroyer.[15]
The
Dionysiac worldview rejects the rational, status-quo for a passionate, creative
will to power. This spirit was grounded in the nationalistic, Aryan, and
romantic naturalism of the Germanic people in which individuals would find their
purpose and meaningful self-sacrifice. Nietzsche's 'deep antagonism to
Christianity' was because it led to a 'degeneration of the Germanic spirit'.[16]
Hitler presented his anti-individualistic, national, and communal or socialist
vision over against what he calls the pacifist’s idealism—and he has in mind
particularly the Jews—which he insisted is 'unnatural'.
Hitler
then engages in a lengthy tirade against the Jew as the opposite of the Aryan
in 'People and Race'. Among his many assertions, the Jew is accused
of supporting Marxism. Marxism shares much with Nazism, both being
socialistic ideologies. The difference is that Nazism promotes the notion
of a national spirit deeply rooted in a mythological history, whereas Marxism
promotes an economic vision of the rising of the poorer class against the
richer class, an anti-capitalist socialism. Hitler's opposition to the
Jews is partly based in his racism and partly in the historical situation of
the early 20th century. Marxists' attempts at governing in European
countries after World War I included a notable element of Jews.
Opposition to Marxists, therefore, included
an anti-Semitism. One might note in Hitler’s argument, then,
that, while fascism claims to follow a naturalistic form of idealism (resulting
in ethnic nationalism), Marxism follows an unnatural (manmade) idealism
(resulting in an economic, international movement). His rant against
the Jews included the delusional notion that there was a Jewish conspiracy to
dominate the world. Underlying anti-Semitism was a hatred of 'the
Other'. (How contradictory today to see social Marxists advocating both a
'multicultural diversity' with 'no borders' and anti-Semitism.)
Apartheid
Apartheid in South Africa bore similarities to
the more extreme version of Nazism in Germany.
It forbad the mixing of races and identified the ‘white’ race as the
superior race. It gave whites special
privileges to allow them to advance beyond the other races, from access to
parks to better schooling to promotion in jobs. Other races were excluded from the political
process. It used the mechanisms of a
powerful, socialist state to control society.
As Hitler advocated, South Africa needed and used the lower races to
advance, especially in the mining industry.
Apartheid could be and sometimes was presented as a kind, paternal
oversight of the lower races, helping them to develop as long as it was
separate development. The point here is
that a strong, socialist government might not include in its social
architecture the elimination of unwanted groups as in Nazi Germany, but the
very establishment of a strong socialist government overseeing its citizens is
full of abusive potential. Given
humanity’s sinfulness, the more centralised its power—as at the tower of
Babel—the more dangerous things become.
Throw assisted suicide into the programme of governmental care, and one
is soon dealing with institutionally enforced euthanasia.
The Present Situation
The argument put
forward here is based in history, but it might also now be followed as an
unfolding story in countries that have instituted assisted suicide, like the
Netherlands and Canada. One resource
that explores the contemporary challenge of assisted suicide and government
involvement in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and elsewhere is
that in 2014 by Kieran Beville, an Irish Baptist pastor and lecturer at
Badhoeverdorp, Netherlands.[17] Beville examines how the ‘right to die’ has
become a ‘right to kill’ matter in the Netherlands. The government established guidelines for
assisted suicide in 1981, one of which was that the person seeking suicide must
be in unbearable pain. As with abortion,
one might note, the initial guideline allowing something easily broadened to include
initially excluded cases. Thus, by 1986,
‘unbearable pain’ was not limited any longer to physical pain but also to
‘psychic suffering’ or ‘potential disfigurement of personality’.[18] Given the right to terminate a person when
the person requests this for virtually any reason, the next development one
might expect is the doctor stepping in without the patient’s consent. In the Netherlands, this is no longer
categorized as ‘euthanasia’ but as ‘life-terminating treatment’. One might note that the practice still fits
under the conceptualisation of ‘care’.
Coercion is no longer a concern as the will of the patient is not an
issue.
Bellville cites
the case of a physician in 1990 who reported putting patients with incurable
cancer and suffering into a coma to relieve the pain, then terminating them
without their consent.[19] Then came the Remmelink Report in 1991, a
government study of its allowance of euthanasia. Bellville writes,
According to the Remmelink Report, in 1990, 2,300 people died as a
result of doctors killing them upon request (active, voluntary
euthanasia). 400 people died as a result
of doctors providing them with the means to kill themselves (physician-assisted
suicide). 1,040 people (an average of 3
per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed
these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent. 14% of these patients were fully
competent. 72% had never given any
indication that they would want their lives terminated. In 8% of the cases, doctors performed
involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options
were still possible. In addition, 8,100
patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain
medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the
patient’s death. In 61% of these cases
(4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s
consent.[20]
Also, in 45% of
the cases, families of hospitalised patients who were involuntarily euthanized
were not given notice.
Once doctors
expand their role from the limitations of the Hippocratic Oath to include what
was long specifically rejected, abortion and assisted suicide/euthanasia, they
move from fighting to save lives to being empowered to take lives. Once so empowered, some will simply take the
unethical route of falsifying death records, claiming the person died of
natural causes. We can be sure that some
will use power in corrupt ways.
Another
consequence of legal euthanasia is that palliative care gets less support than
it otherwise would have. In the case of
the Netherlands, Bellville points out, only two hospice programmes were
operative by the mid-1990s.[21] Furthermore, euthanasia is easily expanded
where the individual in question cannot make decisions for him or herself. This occurred in Holland when the Dutch
Pediatric Association was advised in 1992 that severely handicapped new-borns
were better given an early death than allowed to live.[22] The next year, a court case found that a
psychiatrist was acting legally in assisting in the suicide of a depressed
client whose marriage broke down and whose two children died.[23] In other words, the sluice gates of death
have been opened in the Holland dykes: self-help programmes for youth wishing
to die, lethal injections for elderly patients administered by general
practitioners, training in euthanasia in medical schools, weighing of costs in
medical treatment, acceptance of euthanasia for treatable diseases like
‘diabetes, rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, bronchitis, and accident victims’.[24]
Conclusion
The facts, as presented above by Belleville, regarding Holland’s
allowance and practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide provide evidence of
how things actually develop once doctors committed to caring for patients are
empowered and expected to reinterpret such case to include killing their
patients—something the Hippocratic Oath wisely foresaw as deleterious for the
entire profession of healing. Certainly,
other examples might be multiplied.
Belleville also warns that, where a national health care is unavailable,
as in the USA, and many consequently lack health insurance, the poor may face
only one choice: the cheaper solution of suicide.[25] The examples Belleville has given, however,
point to a different problem: the empowerment of a national health system to
put people to death, even against their consent. My argument is that giving power to an
institution, the health care profession, in socialist countries is far more
dangerous. An identification of an
undesirable class could easily further the use of such power against them. The quintessential example of this is the
National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the Nazis. Given the sudden resurgence and allowance of
anti-Semitic protests, violence, and even policies of some institutions in the
West, we should not assume that ‘surely this would never happen again’, whether
against the Jews or some other group.
[1] Rollin G. Grams, ‘What is Fascism—and Do We Need to Worry about
This in the American Presidential Election?,’ Bible and Mission blog (29 October, 2024); online: Bible
and Mission: What is Fascism--and Do We Need to Worry about This in the
American Presidential Election? (accessed 24 February, 2025).
[2] Plato, Plato in Twelve
Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6, trans.Paul Shorey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969).
[3] Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its
Development (Frankfurt am Main: Outlook Verlag, 2020; orig. pub.
1883), p. 2.
[4] Ibid., p. 17.
[5] Jeremy Sarkin, Germany’s Genocide of the Herero: Kaiser
Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers (Cape Town, SA:
UCT Press, 2011).
[6] Uzonne Anele, ‘Eugen Fischer: The German Doctor Who Conducted
Human Experiments on Herero and Namaqua People in Namibia in 1904-1908,’ Talk
Africana (27 April, 2023); online at https://talkafricana.com/eugen-fischer-the-german-doctor-who-conducted-human-experiments-on-herero-and-namaqua-people-in-namibia-from-1904-1908/ (accessed
27 October, 2024).
[7] Online: https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/law-for-the-prevention-of-offspring-with-hereditary-diseases-july-14-1933.pdf (accessed
29 October, 2024).
[8] Cf. William E. Seidelman, ‘Mengele Medicus: Medicine’s Nazi
Heritage,’ The Milbank Quarterly 66.2 (1988), pp. 221-239.
[9] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (New York: Stackpole and
Sons, 1939; originally published 1925 and 1926 in two volumes).
[10] We might think of a mule, which cannot reproduce, but he gives no
examples. Galton and Plank’s work had advanced this point through
their various experiments.
[11] Ibid., p. 281.
[14] Ibid., p. 291.
[15] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy or Hellenism
and Pessimism, trans. William A. Hausmann (Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis,
1910), pp. xxxviii-xxi.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Kieran Beville, Dying
to Kill: A Christian Perspective on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
(Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2014); online: https://www.google.com/books/edition/DYING_TO_KILL/BSXbBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=suicide+ethics+Christian&printsec=frontcover (accessed 13 January,
2025). Beville looks at the history of
and arguments for assisted suicide in modern times.
[18] Ibid., p. 67.
[19] Ibid., p. 68.
[20] Ibid., pp. 69-70.
[21] Ibid., pp. 71-72.
[22] Ibid., citing Abner
Katzman, ‘Dutch debate mercy killing of babies,’ Contra Costa Times (30 June, 1992), p. 3B.
[23] Ibid., p. 73.
[24] Ibid., pp. 73-74, citing ‘Suicide on Prescription,’ Sunday Observer (30 April, 1989), p. 22.
[25] Ibid., p. 78.
Comments