DDE and the Groningen Protocol

In response to Michael, I am passing along an informative email I received froma reader who is a physician:

If all there was to the Groningen Protocol was an appeal to acknowledging the concept of double effect - the fact that at times the dose of morphine used to control pain ends up being a lethal dose - there would be no Groningen protocol.  It appears that it is trying to establish the idea that
professionals can decide whose life to end over the objections of family as a credible practice simply by declaring it so.  Calling this the equivalent of
Nazi practice is valid.  The problem is too many want to believe/claim that Nazism was such an aberration that when the term is used the argument is dismissed as hyperbole.

Thank you for your taking a stand.

PS: In my experience (MD degree 1984) I have never seen a situation where a person was allowed/required to stay in pain on an inadequate dose of morphine for fear of respiratory suppression.

To be sure, many resources I've read on the subject it is morally licit to administer pain relief even if the the foreseen but unintended side effect of the medication may be to hasten death. Under the Groningen Protocol, however, administering a fatal dose seems to be the intended effect. In light of my corrspondent's PS, moreover, I don't see how it would be morally licit to invoke the DDE to justify providing levels of morphine one knows will cause respiratory suppression.