Lethal drug cocktails experimented on humans.

This article was published by OneNewsNow on December 20, 2019.

An anti-euthanasia group says it isn't ethical for medical personnel to perform lethal experiments on human beings, especially to expand the practice of assisted suicide.

*Prolonged painful assisted suicide deaths and human experiments with new lethal drug cocktails (Link).

Alex Schadenberg

Washington and Oregon are conducting experiments in an effort to find a lethal cocktail of drugs that is inexpensive yet effective enough to kill a patient who qualifies for assisted suicide.

"What's important about this issue is twofold," begins Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. "One, of course, is it's a lie to say that this is a safe, easy death. In fact, it's not. Assisted suicide is often horrific, quite often painful, and usually it takes a long time."

Secondly, medical personnel have been doing the experiments on human beings.

"So these are what you call human experiments. I think this is possibly unethical, and if the federal government, the Controlled Substances Act people realized what was going on, they would probably have to shut it down, because you can't be doing human experiments on someone and having failures like this."

The first two sets of drug combinations failed, with victims experiencing burning throats and painful deaths, or it takes a lengthy periods of time for the cocktail to do its job. Still, a third lethal cocktail has been developed, and medical personnel are beginning to experiment with it on human beings.

Waiting lists are growing for psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Trouw news article by Marten van de Wier is reporting that the waiting list for psychiatric euthanasia at the euthanasia clinic in the Netherlands has grown to more than 100 people with an expected waiting time of one year.

The Trouw report indicates that fewer psychiatrists are willing to participate in psychiatric euthanasia and there are seven psychiatrists at the euthanasia clinic who received approximately 800 requests for euthaansia this year. The Trouw reported (google translated):

The waiting time for a euthanasia trajectory for psychiatric patients has increased to more than a year at the Euthanasia Expertise Center. There are now a hundred people on the waiting list. These are people who are likely to be eligible for euthanasia based on an initial assessment.

The expertise center raised the alarm two years ago about the large influx of psychiatric patients. Then the waiting time was six to nine months. This year a total of around 800 psychiatric patients reported, compared to 692 last year. Only a small group actually get euthanasia: last year 56. Doctors outside the Expertise Center provided euthanasia to psychiatric patients eleven times.

The number of psychiatric euthanasia deaths may be lower but the euthanasia clinic continues to lethally inject at least one psychiatric patient per week.

The change in attitude towards psychiatric euthanasia is likely connected to the case of a doctor who completed the death of a woman with dementia, who had requested euthanasia, but at the time of death resisted.

The doctor put a sedative in her coffee, but the woman continued to resist, so the doctor had the family hold her down while she was lethally injected.

A Netherlands court acquitted the doctor but the Dutch prosecutor asked for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme court.

Many physicians in the Netherlands have indicated that they are not sure of the requirements for psychiatric euthanasia and they now refer these patients to the euthanasia clinic.

Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians: Euthanasia is not consistent with the philosophy, intent or approach of hospice palliative care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

*Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

On December 2, I reported that the Delta Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its opposition to euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated:

MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society's constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.

Irene Thomas Hospice

The BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, responded by declaring that the provincial government will take action if the Delta hospice refuses to kill its patients. Dix suggested that they will stop funding the 10 bed hospice if they refuse to do MAiD.

In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not part of hospice palliative care.

On Tuesday, the President of the CSPCP, Dr Leonie Herx, sent a letter to Minister Dix supporting the refusal by the Delta Hospice Society to do euthanasia (MAiD) and stating that MAiD is not consistent with the philosophy, intent, or approach of hospice palliative care which supports dying as a natural process and does not hasten death: Herx stated:

The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians is concerned that palliative care centres in Fraser Health, such as some hospices, might be mandated to provide Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) on site. While we appreciate the requirement for MAiD to be available, requiring it to be provided in hospices and palliative care units poses risk for potential harm. The risks are outlined in in our submission to the Special Joint Committee: (Link).

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) recently released a Joint Statement on Hospice Palliative Care and MAiD which further outlines that MAiD is not consistent with the philosophy, intent, or approach of hospice palliative care which supports dying as a natural process and does not hasten death: (Link).

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) also recognizes the distinct nature of these practices in the unanimously passed General Council Resolution DM 5-63 which states: The Canadian Medical Association recognizes that the practice of assisted death as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada is distinct from the practice of palliative care.

One of the biggest potential harms is to those who do not choose MAiD (more than 98% of those who die as only about 1.5% choose MAiD). Both the public and many health care providers have had a longstanding fear of Hospice Palliative Care because they were afraid it hastened peoples’ deaths. This has led to late referrals and people choosing to not be referred to palliative care services that could have benefited them. For over 40 years we have been trying to educate the public and health care professionals that Hospice Palliative Care neither hastens nor prolongs the natural process of dying.

The core philosophy of hospice care is to provide a culture of caring that enables persons to live fully until they die a natural death and to minimize the symptoms and fears of the dying process, but never to intentionally hasten death.

Insisting that MAiD be provided in all palliative care centres and hospices has the potential to undermine the last 40 years of education about and advocacy for Hospice Palliative Care and goes against the core, foundational principles of hospice care. It also removes choice for those who want to choose a natural death supported by high quality hospice palliative care without fear their lives will be shortened.

Hospices and PC units should be able to make their own local arrangements for patients who request MAiD that allows patients access to this procedure and also maintains the integrity and availability of Hospice Palliative Care.

We kindly ask for you to consider the risk of harm and to help provide good access to high quality hospice palliative care.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Terminally ill Ontario man is denied the care that he needs to live.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have published previous articles (1) (2) (3) (4) about how denying the care that terminally ill people need and the effort to make euthanasia or assisted suicide (MAiD) more available.

For instance, Ontario doctors who oppose euthanasia have been ordered to do an effective referral for euthanasia. Effective referral is defined as referral for the purpose of the act. This means that a physician who opposes killing must send his patient to a physician who will kill.
 
Recently the Delta BC Hospice Society that are refusing to do euthanasia have been ordered by the Minister of Health to do MAiD or lose their funding.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Mark Doner

An article by Bill Hodgins for MyKawartha.com reports that Mark Doner, who is living with terminal cancer, was informed that the personal support worker hours that he receives are being cut. Hodgins explains:

Doner is dying of cancer. The 58-year-old Peterborough man says since he was diagnosed in 2017, it has spread from his colon and small intestine to his liver. He’s outlived the time his doctors gave him and he’s not going to get any better.

Doner lives alone in a highrise apartment in Peterborough, and currently gets assistance from personal support workers (PSW) six days out of the week. Every second day, he gets two hours of help. It’s one hour on alternate days. Nurses visit about every three days.

Earlier this month, he says a co-ordinator from the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) dropped by, asked him some questions, then informed him his personal support worker care hours would be cut to just one hour on the days where he was getting two hours of care.

“I just don’t get it,” says the former resort chef. “I’ve had operations. I’m in pain. I have some good days but even my girls (the PSWs) say I should be asking for more care.”

Do support worker cut-backs lead to elder abuse? Hodgins quotes Jennifer Brown, a long-term care advocate in Ontario.

“How is cutting the weekly hours of personal support workers in Ontario LTC (long-term care) homes combating elder abuse?

“How does sowing anxiety and fear about their own job security among the uncut personal support workers, that results in increased sick days and heavier workloads for those who do come to work, combat elder abuse?”

The article does not suggest that Doner is being pressured to euthanasia. Whether the Ministry of Health wants people, like Doner, to ask for euthanasia or euthanasia is an "accidental" outcome of their policy, the fact is that he is being denied the care that he needs and euthanasia is being pushed.

The Health Minister should know that people, like Doner, who live in their private residence cost the government less money than those living in assisted living or a hospital. If the government does not provide enough home care support he may eventually be forced to move into assisted living which will cost the government a lot more money.

At the same time, the number of seniors waiting for long-term care placements is at a record high.

This is not a conservative vs liberal ideological debate - home care is less expensive and more dignified.

Denying people the home care that they need is dangerous and promotes euthanasia (MAiD).

Canada's Justice Minister is considering expanding euthanasia to include teenagers and incompetent people.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's Justice Minister, David Lametti was reported in a Radio Canada interview that he is considering extending euthanasia to teenagers and people who are incompetent but made a previous request.

Lametti, who voted against Bill C-14 in 2016 because it didn't go far enough, has been ordered by Prime Minister Trudeau to expand Canada's euthanasia law.

All of this is based on the fact that the Liberal government did not appeal a Québec court decision that struck down the section of Canada's euthanasia law requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable."
 
The Liberal government double speak is particularly concerning. Last Spring the government announced that no changes will be made to the law until after the government completed a five year review, that would begin in June 2020. What is the purpose of a five year review if the government eliminates the restrictions in the law previous to the consultation.

Christian Noël reporting for Radio Canada explains what Lametti said in the interview (google translated):

..the Minister of Justice said he was juggling the idea of ​​allowing people who suffer from a neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson's disease, to seek medical aid in dying early, before being unable to '' express their consent.

The possibility that seriously ill young people between the ages of 14 and 17 may seek medical assistance in dying, with psychological tags in place, is also being considered.

We will have to see if we have a strong consensus. The Canadian and Quebec societies of 2019 are not the same as in 2015. There is an evolution, a greater acceptance of assisted dying in Canada.

Lametti did recognize that he could simply amend the law based on the Quebec court decision. Radio Canada reported:

The other option on the table is to settle the question of reasonably foreseeable death in time for March 11, while keeping an in-depth review of the law for this summer. The government had promised to review the law every five years, a deadline that arrives in June.

The Globe and Mail suggested a more cautious approach in its December 16 editorial. It suggested that legislation require that before MAiD is done that all other options be tried first and that the government assure better services for people with chronic conditions that cause suffering. The Globe and Mail editorial concluded:

But Ottawa should not just throw up its hands and enforce no precautions. That could tilt the balance too far in the other direction. Making access to assisted death too difficult is undesirable, but so is making it too easy.

The federal government announced that there would be a five year review of the euthanasia law beginning in June 2020 and yet it is now considering amending the legislation before the review is done.

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide oversight and control. EPC would like the government to step back and agree to an honest analysis of what is the actual happening with euthanasia in Canada.

Forcing Hospices to do Euthanasia in Canada

This article was published by National Review online today.

By Wesley J Smith

Euthanasia is more than just legal in Canada. It has become a government-guaranteed right.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

But how to guarantee that the legally qualified who want to die are made dead? Unless the government establishes killing centers out of Soylent Green, it will have to coerce doctors into doing the killing — as has been done in Ontario. And, it will have to force medical facilities into allowing euthanasia on premises, whether their administators like it or not.

Such an imposition is now taking place in British Columbia, where the Dignity Hospice board of directors are standing tall for the hospice philosophy of caring — but never killing — by refusing to permit euthanasia in the facililty. In response, the BC Health Minister is threatening to restrict funding in the single-payer system, which, ironically, would undercut the facilities ability to care optimally for their patients who don’t want to be killed. From the Globe and Mail story:

A B.C. hospice society that refuses to provide medical assistance in dying at its facility in violation of local rules has been given until Thursday to submit plans for compliance.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Health Minister Adrian Dix said the Delta Hospice Society, which operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner, may face penalties if it fails to do so.

“We’ve asked them … to provide their plan to fulfill their contract with the Fraser Health Authority and it is our expectation that they will,” Mr. Dix said on Wednesday. “Should they not want to fulfill their contract with Fraser Health, there may well be consequences of that.”

It it my understanding that there is a Fraser hospital directly across the street from the hospice where patients are euthanized. It would be easy to move hospice patients who want to have that done to the hospital where they could be put down according to their desire. But even if that weren’t true, so long as the hospice advises patients that euthanasia is not permitted on site, why force the issue? Why threaten to bring financial ruin upon a small, heterodox-managed institution?

Because of the message that Delta sends that euthanasia is morally wrong and an improper way to treat terminally ill patients. That is what burns. Hence, the authoritarian response of the government.

This is both a civil rights issue and a matter of basic compassion. Think about the patient in the next bed who values life and knows that his neighbor is being killed by a doctor. That would be both terrifying and morale destroying because of the cruel message communicated that his life — like that of the neighbor — is no longer deemed worth protecting.

The ongoing assault on medical conscience in Canada demonstrates how the culture of death brooks no dissent. The same thing will happen here if we let the wolf in the door. Those with eyes to see, let them see.

Prolonged painful assisted suicide deaths and human experiments with new lethal drugs cocktails

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article published in the Spring Hill Insider yesterday looks at experiments being done on people to find an effective lethal drug cocktail for assisted suicide. 

The current drug cocktails have caused painful assisted suicide deaths that may take many hours to die.

The article states that assisted suicide researchers are promoting their third generation of lethal drug cocktails. The results of the first two lethal drug cocktails were:

The (first) turned out to be too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain. The second drug mix, used 67 times, has led to deaths that stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.

The first two lethal drug cocktail experiments failed to provide a painless, fast death. Remember, these experiments are being done on people.

In February I published the article - assisted dying can cause inhumane deaths based on research by Professor Jaideep Pandit that was published in the British Medical Journal. Pandit researched complications with assisted suicide and capital punishment deaths. The same lethal drugs are used for assisted suicide and capital punishment.

Pandit reports that the complications include:

• difficulty in swallowing the prescribed dose (up to nine per cent) and vomiting in 10 per cent, both of which can prevent proper dosing.
• Re-emergence from a coma occurred in two per cent of cases, with a small number of patients even sitting up during the dying process, the authors said. 
• After oral sedative ingestion, patients usually lose consciousness within five minutes. However, death takes considerably longer. 
• But in a third of cases, death can take up to 30 hours, and some deaths took as many as seven days to occur (four per cent).

It is shocking that New Jersey legalized assisted suicide in March and other states are considering assisted suicide, when people in Oregon are dying long and painful assisted suicide deaths.

The assisted suicide promoters and practitioners developed the lethal drug cocktail by doing human trials rather than animal trials. The team appeared concerned with the lethal efficacy and cost of the lethal drugs as opposed to the possible negative consequences. 

The negative outcomes associated with the lethal drug cocktails and the ethics of human experimentation related to the development of these drugs should cause US government, under the controlled substances act, to stop assisted suicide and prevent human experimentation with lethal drug cocktails.

The euthanasia lobby is not concerned with a "good" death but rather the cost of the drugs. So much for dying with compassion and dignity.

More articles on this topic:

• What's cruel for incarceration is cruel for the terminally ill. The connection between lethal injection and capital punishment (Link).
• Complications with lethal drugs used for assisted suicide (Link).
• Many assisted suicide deaths are slow and painful (Link).
• Is lethal injection inhumane. Euthanasia execution drug controversy (Link).

Hastening death isn't what hospice is about.

This article was published by OneNewsNow on December 16, 2019

Euthanasia proponents in Canada are targeting a hospice program in what is no doubt hoped to be the start of a domino effect.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Delta Hospice in British Columbia refuses to kill its patients, as it recognizes a hospice facility is meant to make its patients as comfortable as possible until their natural death. But Frazier Health, the authority that receives funding through the provincial government, has decided that all organizations it sends money to, including Delta, will euthanize patients.

"The board of the Delta Hospice has maintained a position saying that they oppose euthanasia," relays Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. "On top of it, they maintain the position that euthanasia's not compatible with hospice care. Further … part of their articles of incorporation say that they do not hasten death."

Alex Schadenberg

But Frazier Health is warning Delta that maintaining that policy will end their funding, thus shutting down the hospice facility.

"If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then the other hospice organizations that are also holding out … will be in a situation where they will also likely be forced to do euthanasia," Schadenberg warns.

In Delta's case, there is a hospital across the street that does euthanize patients, so the question is why Delta Hospice is being compelled to offer services that are already available nearby.

• BC Health Minister says he will force the Delta Hospice to kill (Link).

US Congress Resolution H.Con.Res.79: Assisted suicide puts everyone at risk of deadly harm.

(Link to the Congressional Resolution H.Con.Res.79)

Expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide (sometimes referred to using other terms) puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 12, 2019

Mr. Correa (for himself, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Langevin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Abraham) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Whereas “suicide” means the act of intentionally ending one’s own life, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas “assisting in a suicide”, sometimes referred to as death with dignity, end-of-life options, aid-in-dying, or similar phrases, means knowingly and willingly prescribing, providing, dispensing, or distributing to an individual a substance, device, or other means that, if taken, used, ingested, or administered as directed, expected, or instructed, will, with reasonable medical certainty, result in the death of the individual, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas society has a longstanding policy of supporting suicide prevention such as through the efforts of many public and private suicide prevention programs, the benefits of which could be denied under a public policy of assisted suicide;

Whereas assisted suicide most directly threatens the lives of people who are elderly, experience depression, have a disability, or are subject to emotional or financial pressure to end their lives;

Whereas the Oregon Health Authority’s annual reports reveal that pain or the fear of pain is listed second to last (25 percent) among the reasons cited by all patients seeking lethal drugs since 1998, while the top 5 reasons cited are psychological and social concerns: “losing autonomy” (92 percent), “less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable” (90 percent), “loss of dignity” (79 percent), “losing control of bodily functions” (48 percent), and “burden on family friends/caregivers” (41 percent);

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill) that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, that the Government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and that such prohibitions rationally relate to “protecting the vulnerable from coercion” and “protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and ‘societal indifference’”;

Whereas clearly expressing that assisted suicide is not a legitimate health care service, Congress passed, with a nearly unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act to prevent the use of Federal funds for any item or service, including advocacy, provided for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the death of any individual such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;

Whereas a handful of States have authorized assisted suicide, but over 30 States have rejected over 200 attempts at legalization since 1994;

Whereas States that authorize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients do not require that such patients receive psychological screening or treatment, though studies show that the overwhelming majority of patients contemplating suicide experience depression;

Whereas the laws of such States contain no requirement for a medical attendant to be present at the time the lethal dose is taken, used, ingested, or administered to intervene in the event of medical complications;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement that a qualified monitor be present to assure that the patient is knowingly and voluntarily taking, using, ingesting, or administering the lethal dose;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement to secure lethal medication if unwanted or if death occurs before such medication is used;

Whereas such State laws do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide;

Whereas such States qualify some patients for assisted suicide by using a broad definition of “terminal disease” and “going to die in six months or less” that includes diseases (such as diabetes or HIV) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within six months;

Whereas it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a six-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;

Whereas reporting requirements vary by State, but when required, rely on prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists to self-report;

Whereas such reporting is neither conducted by an objective third party nor of sufficient depth and accuracy to effectively monitor the occurrence of assisted suicide;

Whereas there is an astounding lack of transparency in the practice of assisted suicide to the extent that State health departments and other authorities admittedly have no method of knowing if it is being practiced within the bounds of State laws and have no funding or authority to make such a determination;

Whereas some State laws actively conceal assisted suicide by directing the physician to list the cause of death as the underlying condition without reference to death by suicide;

Whereas the confidential nature of end-of-life decisions makes it virtually impossible to effectively monitor a physician’s behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;

Whereas the cost of lethal medication is far less costly than many life-saving treatments, which threatens to restrict treatment options, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, as has happened in several known cases and presumably many more unknown in which insurers have denied or delayed coverage for life-saving care while offering to cover assisted suicide;

Whereas access to personal assistance services such as in-home hospice and palliative care, home health care aides, and nursing care/nursing assistance is regretfully limited and subject to long waiting lists in many areas, placing systemic pressure on patients in need of such personal assistance services to resort to assisted suicide; and

Whereas for all these reasons, assisted suicide undermines the integrity of the health care system: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should ensure that every person facing the end of their life has access to the best quality and comprehensive medical care, including palliative, in-home, or hospice care, tailored to their needs and that the Federal Government should not adopt or endorse policies or practices that support, encourage, or facilitate suicide or assisted suicide, whether by physicians or others.

Euthanasia of people with dementia. Medpage "ethics consult"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week, Medpage Today posted an "Ethics Consult" concerning euthanasia of a person with dementia.

The consult was based on the euthanasia death of a Dutch woman who requested euthanasia in her advanced directive, but then resisted and said NO at the time of the euthanasia. The physician put a sedative in her coffee, to settle her down, but the woman continued to resist so the physician had the family hold her down as she was lethally injected. A Dutch court decided that the euthanasia had been carried out with proper care and cleared the doctor of all charges.

The Medpage consult had more than 5100 physicians respond. Medpage asked: 

On the day of the determined death, the patient became agitated to the point of screaming and pushing the physician away when he approached. It became clear that she would need to be sedated and physically restrained to administer the lethal injection.

1 Do you proceed with the euthanasia?

750 physicians responded YES and 4,400 physicians NO.

I am concerned that 750 physicians responded YES, nonetheless, a strong majority responded NO.

Canada is considering extending euthanasia to people with dementia, who made a previous request. 

In Canada euthanasia is done by physicians or nurse practitioners who lethally inject the person. Canada's criminal code recognizes this as a form of homicide but the government provided an exception to homicide when two doctors or nurse practitioners agree that the person qualifies for euthanasia. Nonetheless this is homicide.

I oppose creating exceptions to homicide/murder, but in this case the person is incapable of consenting at the time of death. Therefore the defense of consent, which the law requires, is not possible.

Secondly, when a person is declared incompetent they legally unable to change their legal documents, such as a Power of Attorney (Living Will). Therefore incompetent people are legally unable to change their minds.

If euthanasia is permitted based on a statement in a Power of Attorney document, the physician or nurse practitioner would be able to lethally inject (euthanasia) the person even if the person had changed their mind.

* Protect your life by purchasing the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link).

The fact that Canada is debating this issue proves that euthanasia is deceptive and fatally flawed, nonetheless, euthanasia for people with dementia should be rejected.

Fighting assisted suicide and euthanasia in New York State. Conference - January 14.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - USA and New York Against Assisted Suicide have a conference/training session at the Albany Statehouse (Albany NY)

Tuesday January 14, 2020 from 10:30 am to 2:30 pm.

 

Nancy Elliott

More details coming soon. 
The speakers include:

Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) Founder and Executive Director

Nancy Elliott, EPC-USA Chair and former three term New Hampshire State Representative.

Dr Paul Saba

Dr Paul Saba, co-founder and co-preseident of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice

Dawn Eskew, Founder, New York Against Assisted Suicide.

Register by emailing info@epcc.ca

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has said that he supports assisted suicide.

This event is will inform and activate New York citizens to defeat assisted suicide.

More information about assisted suicide.

• Disability advocates worry about making it easier for physicians to cause death. 
• Assisted suicide: What can seem like dignity can turn out to be anything but.
• Oregon 2018 assisted suicide report.

The Economist Swoons over Death Doctor & His Suicide Machine

This article was published by National Review online on December 13, 2019.

By Wesley Smith

The mainstream media mostly went head over heels over Jack Kevorkian’s ghoulish assisted suicide campaign, rarely mentioning that his ultimate goal was to gain the right to conduct human vivisection on people being euthanized.

The Australian Kevorkian — Philip Nitschke — hasn’t advocated that. But he has traveled the world teaching people how to commit suicide, published a suicide recipe he invented made of common household ingredients, and pushed a pernicious death-on-demand philosophy. Now The Economist swoons over “the bad boy of the euthanasia movement,” touting his new suicide pod machine in a profile of a length few presidents have received. From, “A Design for Death:”

My host’s name is Philip Nitschke and he’s invented a machine called Sarco. Short for sarcophagus, the slick, spaceship-like pod has a seat for one passenger en-route to the afterlife. It uses nitrogen to enact a pain-free, peaceful death from inert-gas asphyxiation at the touch of a button. With the help of his wife and colleague, the writer and lawyer Dr Fiona Stewart, Nitschke is ushering the death-on-demand movement towards a dramatic new milestone – and their enthusiasm is palpable.

And he’s such a jolly fellow!

Nitschke and Stewart are much jollier than you’d expect the right-to-die movement’s only power couple to be. They’re full of – well – joie de vivre and arch banter about everything from Brexit to the roadworks that have denuded the front of their home of a beloved creeper. “If it’s not dead, boy is it doing a bloody good impression of being dead,” observes Nitschke, correctly.

And he’s so good at the suicide sales pitch!

It’s undeniable that Nitschke’s campaigns have exhibited a certain PR-savvy pizzazz. He is the originator, no less, of the euthanasia flash mob, which took place to celebrate his 70th birthday and 20 years of Exit International (soundtrack: Bon Jovi’s “It’s My Life”, naturally). When he announced plans for Sarco, it was dismissed by some, says Nitschke, as “a stunt, or some virtual creation in someone’s mind that didn’t have any prospect of physical reality.”

I can attest that the machine exists, having had the singular experience of reclining on a prototype at Nitschke’s workshop on an industrial estate in Hillegom, South Holland, amidst the incongruous spring blaze of the tulip fields. Plus, scratch the surface of his provocative patter and there’s a person – a patient – lurking behind each of his convictions.

I think we should be very clear about who, exactly, The Economist is touting. Nitschke, the nihilist, told NRO’s Katherine Jean Lopez that he wants suicide pills made available in supermarkets. Katherine asked Nitschke whether they should be available to “troubled teens.” Why, yes, he said. From Katherine’s NRO interview:

My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want. (In the same way as the right to freedom of religion has implicit the right to be an atheist, and the right to freedom of speech involves the right to remain silent). I do not believe that telling people they have a right to life while denying them the means, manner, or information necessary for them to give this life away has any ethical consistency.

So all people qualify, not just those with the training, knowledge, or resources to find out how to “give away” their life. And someone needs to provide this knowledge, training, or recourse necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, [and] the troubled teen. If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of sub-groups who don’t meet our criteria.

Nitschke has taught elderly people how to get animal euthanasia drugs to use on themselves. He has repeatedly lied about those he counseled on suicide, such as that of Nancy Crick, who Nitschke falsely claimed to the media that she had terminal cancer. Nitschke wasn’t near her when she died to avoid criminal his own culpability, but his fans were — and they applauded when she swallowed the pills. When I traveled to Australia in 2001 to expose him about the above-quoted interview with Katherine, he accused me of lying in the media. He also used to sell plastic suicide bags to suicidal people until stopped by the Australian government.

The man is thoroughly reprehensible. No wonder the mainstream media is attracted to him like a magnet to metal. They love their transgressives!

BC Health Minister says he will force the Delta Hospice to kill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

The BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, declared yesterday that the BC government will take action if the Delta hospice refuses to kill its patients.

Adrian Dix has suggested that they will stop funding the 10 bed Delta Hospice if it refuses to kill.

On December 2, I reported that the Board of the Delta BC Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its position opposing euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated:

MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society's constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.

In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not part of hospice palliative care. They stated:

MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care. 

...Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life. 

The Delta Optimist newpaper reported, on December 7, that Fraser Health informed the Delta Hospice that their position is at odds with the policy of Fraser Health. A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:

The region noted it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.

The position of the Delta Hospice is not new. In February 2018, the Delta Hospice was ordered by Fraser Health to provide euthanasia. The Delta Hospice did not comply with the Fraser Health edict.

If the Delta Hospice closes, the residents of Delta will lose the 10 bed hospice that is known for providing excellent end-of-life care.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian Hospice groups will be forced to do euthanasia.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Disability Activist Anita Cameron To Speak At Congressional Briefing On Assisted Suicide

Link to the article published by Not Dead Yet.

Bipartisan Resolution Opposing Assisted Suicide Laws Reintroduced

Anita Cameron

Anita Cameron, director of minority outreach for Not Dead Yet, will speak at a Congressional briefing to be held Thursday, December 12, 2019 in Room 2168 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

The briefing is cosponsored by the National Council on Disability (NCD), Congressman Lou Correa (D-CA) and Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH). This briefing will explore the findings and recommendations of a recent federal study of the country’s assisted suicide laws and their effect on access to health care and other dangers for people with disabilities.

The briefing coincides with this week’s reintroduction of a bipartisan House resolution,

“Expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide (sometimes referred to using other terms) puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.”

Representative Correa is the lead sponsor, joined by Representative Wenstrup, and additional original cosponsors are Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. (R-MD), Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Ralph Abraham, M.D. (R-LA), Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), and Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA).

Cameron has often spoken of the risks posed to people of color if assisted suicide becomes normalized in our healthcare system. 

“Due to racial disparities, Blacks and people of color receive inferior healthcare compared to Whites, especially in cardiac care, diabetes and pain management. Blacks are diagnosed with cancer at much later stages and the prognosis is worse,” 

Cameron says. 

“With so much documented healthcare injustice, we should not grant the system a greater license to kill.”

Diane Coleman

NDY’s president and CEO, Diane Coleman, also provided a statement in support of the resolution: 

“As a national, secular, social justice organization, Not Dead Yet strongly supports this bipartisan effort to speak truth to counter the many myths about legalized assisted suicide. As Americans with disabilities, we are on the front lines of the nation’s health care system that too often devalues old, ill, and disabled people. We are deeply concerned that profits are being prioritized over human needs. So we are grateful for this Sense of Congress that explains the dangers of mistake, coercion, and abuse under a public policy of assisted suicide.”

Additional national disability organizations issuing statements this week supporting the resolution include ADAPT, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and the National Council on Independent Living.