Washington State 2015 assisted suicide report: assisted deaths increase by 32% - under-reporting continues.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2015 Washington State Department of Health dwd report, up by 32% from 166 in 2015 to 126 in 2014 and 21% increase in lethal prescription in 2014 with 213.

Out of the 213 lethal prescriptions in 2015 there were 166 reported assisted suicide deaths, 24 deaths from other causes, 12 deaths where the "ingestion status" was unknown, and 11 people remained alive. 

Dangerously, when the ingestion status is unknown, then the status of the lethal drugs is also unknown.

A greater number of illnesses are leading to assisted suicide. The assisted suicide report states that deaths from other illnesses increased to 10 from 6 in 2014. The report did not list what other illnesses represents but in Oregon other illnesses includes diabetes.

Several years ago Wes Olfert was pressured to die by assisted suicide in Washington State after inquiring about assisted suicide.

Legalizing assisted suicide creates new pressures upon people who are terminally or chronically ill and is a recipe for elder abuse.

The Euthanasia Deception documentary.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) in association with DunnMedia is pleased to announce that the International release of The Euthanasia Deception will be August 29, complete with interactive website and resource materials at: www.vulnerablefilm.com. 

Purchase The Euthanasia Deception for $30 for 1 copy or $100 for 4 copies or $200 for 10 copies. You can pay (online) or order by emailing: info@epcc.ca or by calling toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

The fifty-two minute documentary features powerful testimonies from Belgium and Canada, exposes the three main deceptions used by the assisted dying lobby:

• Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as a form of compassion or mercy.
• Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as a form of autonomy. 
• The myth that safeguards can protect people is exposed. 

Tom Mortier

The Euthanasia Deception features; 

• Professor Tom Mortier, a Belgian man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia,
• Hendrik Reitsma, whose grand-father died by an assisted death without request in the Netherlands,
• Dr Catherine Dopchie, a palliative physician in Belgium,
• Dr Benoit Beusselinck, a Belgian oncologist and palliative care doctor in Leuven Belgium,
• Carine Brochier, the co-ordinator of the European Institute of Bioethics in Belgium,
• Professor Etienne Montero, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Namur Belgium,
• Kristina Hodgetts, a nurse speaks about her experience with assisted death in Canada.
• Lionel Roosemont, a Belgian man who is the father of a significantly disabled child,
• Amy Hasbrouck, a lawyer and a disability rights leader in Québec Canada,
• Mark Pickup, a disability rights activist and public speaker in Alberta Canada,
• Steven Passmore, a disability rights activist in Ontario Canada,
• Alex Schadenberg, the International Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We are all vulnerable at different times in our lives. This documentary is a dire warning for Canada and the rest of the world.

Promo: Medical Assistance in Dying (Euthanasia) Don't Go There.

Your donations to EPC enable us to continue our commitment to resisting the acceptance of euthanasia while providing jurisdictions with data to prevent its legalization.

Purchase The Euthanasia Deception by (paying $30 by credit card or paypal) or order by emailing: info@epcc.ca or calling toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

States worse than death: I don't think so.

This article was published by William Peace on his Bad Cripple blog on Wednesday August 10.

William Peace is a Syracuse University Professor and disability activist 

William Peace

JAMA Internal Medicine has been in the news and references to a recent article abound on various social media platforms. Here I refer to "States Worse than Death Among Hospitalized Patients with Serious Illnesses" by Emily Rubin and other researchers at the University of Pennsylvania. Over eight months a team of researchers surveyed 180 patients who had been admitted to a hospital in Philadelphia with serious illnesses that included heart and lung disease. All the patients interviewed were 60 years and older. The study was conducted between July 1, 2015 and March 7, 2016. None of the patients had limitations on any life sustaining treatment in their electronic medical records. Researchers asked these patients to hypothesize whether they would prefer to die than be in a progressively worse state of being. In typically terse language Rubin wrote:

Death is a patient-centered outcome because nearly everyone wishes to avoid it. Despite this general preference, however, studies among healthy outpatients and those with serious illnesses show that a significant minority, and sometimes a majority, rate states such as severe dementia as worse than death. Link to the study.

What conditions were patients asked about? Conditions that were deemed worse than death include:

Bowel and bladder incontinence.Relying on Breathing machine to live.Cannot get out of bed.Confused all the time.Relying on a feeding tube.Need care all the time.Living in a nursing home.At home all day.Moderate pain all the time.In a wheelchair.

Below is the chart:

As the above demonstrates, about 70% of patients identified bowel and bladder incontinence, reliance on a breathing machine and the inability to get out of bed as a fate worse than death. 60% indicated being confused all the time and 55% for reliance on a feeding tube and 50% for needing around the clock care were fates worse than death. Other fates worse than death were in a wheelchair, constant moderate pain and being unable to leave home--all a fate worse than death.

Here is the kicker: none of the patients had experienced the conditions described as a fate worse than death. Yes, the patients responding to the hypotheticals posed had not experienced any of the conditions described. It seems to me if researches wanted to ask this sort of hypothetical question it would be behoove them to ask people that live with the conditions described. Instead, they did the exact opposite. This makes no sense. It is akin to asking a middle aged white man what it is like to be a black man.

As one would suspect, the study has gotten glowing reviews from those who advocate for assisted suicide legislation. This "data" has been deemed important by none other than the Economist. Under the Right to Die "What is Unbearable: Some Data about an Emotional Issue":

death really can seem preferable to a lifetime of pain and suffering. A growing movement, including this newspaper, thus seeks to legalize--with stringent safeguards--doctor-assisted suicide around the world... Asking people approaching, or threatened with death, how they feel about it, and the moment at which they would like it to come, is a welcome development. Both side of the doctor-assisted-dying debate should pay attention to it.

As an opponent of assisted suicide legislation, I am paying attention. I read the so called "data" and shook my head on wonder. People over the age of 60 were asked a series of questions that was framed as a fate worse then death. Think about what this says about the millions of people who live with these conditions. Let's review the list. I have experience with the following: Bowel and bladder incontinence, cannot get of bed, need care all the time, at home all day, moderate pain all the time, in a wheelchair. In baseball parlance I am 6 for 10. I am not sure I should be impressed with myself for living a life deemed worse than death or appalled by those surveyed. This study was not conducted in splendid isolation. The study relied on fear. Fear of physical and mental decline all humans will experience. Fear of death. This study only muddies the water in terms of end of life care and the distinction between terminal illness and disability. Terminal illness and disability do not necessarily go hand in hand. Years ago I was at a bioethics conference that had a predominance of people with a disability attending. One speaker asked how many people had been deemed terminally ill at some point in their life? Virtually every person in the audience raised their hand. This reminded of Mike Ervin aka Smart Ass Cripple. He was deemed terminally ill. Those physicians that described him as such are all now deceased decades later.

I truly shake my head in wonder when people fiercely advocate for assisted suicide legislation. It is a red herring. Those that fervently advocate for assisted suicide ask all the wrong questions. I struggle to control my bowels and bladder. This can be a messy business. But it is a management issue and not a statement about the quality of my life or the life of others. A breathing machine? Let's play very fast and loose with language. Exactly what is being referred to here? Ventilation support is a wide arc and a vague reference to a "breathing machine" is inherently misleading. Relying on a feeding tube? I know plenty of people who have used feeding tubes for extended stretches and some who are entirely dependent upon a feeding tube. This too is not a statement on the quality of life. Living in a nursing home? When this is used as a reason to believe it is a fate worse than death I consider this an indictment on the industry not the people who end up living in a nursing home. Stuck at home all day? Again why is one stuck at home? It is possible for others to visit and community living is an option. The slogan "our homes not nursing homes" comes to mind. Do I even need to broach the "use a wheelchair issue". Here is a radical idea: provide a properly fitting wheelchair that is ideally suited to a person's needs. If we did that some of the stigma associated with wheelchair use would be ameliorated. Instead, we isolate the elderly for instance in nursing homes and have them sit in a wheelchair junker that does not fit. No wonder this is deemed a fate worse than death.

The answer to end of life issues is not to legislate assisted suicide laws. The answer to providing quality end of life care requires a national discussion. There is no such thing as a good death. This too is misleading rhetoric coming from people who frame death as a right. When I read this study my first thought was people with a disability are being rendered silent. We are absent from the discussion about our life being a fate worse than death. The researchers in this study felt free to imagine what our lives are like. This happens all the time. The experience is surreal. Oh how many times I have had a biped explain disability to me with great clarity and insight that had escaped me the last 35 years. Heavy on the sarcasm here. Just today I read "Academia, Accessibility, Being Spoken For" by Briana Suslovic. (Link to her article) She wrote:

It’s a strange feeling to have your own life explained to you in someone else’s terms, isn’t it? When someone else seems to know your language better than you, and then they start translating it into bigger and scarier words, invoking authors you’ve only heard about at cocktail parties, turning your experiences into a case study for fellow scholars to feast upon. That feeling, that dissection, that intellectual erasure-while-remaining-in-the-room… it’s so hard to describe that to someone who hasn’t been through the incredibly de-humanizing experience of being told about yourself in terms you don’t quite understand.

Bravo Suslovic. This is exactly what those that advocate for assisted suicide do not want to hear. They want to render those living a life deemed "a fate worse than death" silent. Advocates that champion a so called good death impose their imagination on our reality. In reality our lives are quite good. If you want to know how to manage incontinence give me a call. If you want to know what it is like to be dependent upon others give me a call. If you want to know about moderate pain, give me a call. Exactly who is the expert here?

Lastly, please do not talk to me about safeguards in assisted suicide legislation that the Economist mentioned. All the safeguards in the world are not enough. Safeguards exist for a reason. Some lives, lives such as mine, are framed as a "fate worse than death". This makes me vulnerable. This makes many people vulnerable. I cannot speak for all people with a disability but I can say with certainty I fear accessing medical care. I fear serious illness. I do not fear the pain of being ill. I do not fear how dehumanizing being hospitalized can be. My fear is different. I fear the do gooder physician. I fear the silent assumption my life is indeed considered a fate worse than death. I fear the kind, loving, and compassionate physician that will decide I have suffered enough. I have met one such physician. I also know there are many more that exist. Please be skeptical of the data considered here. I can speak for myself and others too. We just need typical others to listen. I assure you the quality of my life is quite good. I can say the same about all those I know who have adapted to life with a disability. All typical others need to do is to read what we write about our experiences. navigating a hostile world. And please don't worry this bad cripple does not bite.

Norman Kunc: Legalizing Assisted Suicide takes away the mental health safety net for people with disabilities.

Norman Kunc - Project Value

When I was born the doctors told my parents to put me in an institution.

Luckily, my parents ignored the doctor's advice and took me home.

Initially I went to a segregated school, and then argued my way into a regular school.

I went on to complete an undergrad in Humanities and a Master's in Family Therapy.

I now have a successful carreer as a speaker.

I'm married, I have two grown children, and I have a great life.

In the discussion about Canada's assisted dying legislation, many people don't realize how making disability a legitimate condition for suicide jeopardizes the safety of all disabled Canadians.

Norm & Emma

So let me try to explain.

What would happen if my wife died and I became depressed and suicidal?

Now if a non-disabled Canadian becomes suicidal, there is a commitment among psychiatrists and counsellors to rekindle that person's disire to live, and if necessary to protect that person from themselves.

However, as a disabled Canadian, if I become suicidal it is possible and even likely that the psychiatrist will see that as a rational and informed decision.

And that commitment to help me move through and beyond my suicidal state might now be seen as forcing me to live an unbearable life.

And so that psychiatrist may, in fact, help me die.

That terrifies me.

As a disabled Canadian, I want the same commitment to suicide prevention that is afforded to non-disabled Canadians.

This assisted-dying legislation takes away the mental health safety net for disabled Canadians.

• Previous articles concerning Norman Kunc.

Euthanasia - Disability Hate Crime and the silence.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Australian News Weekly magazine published an excellent article by Paul Russell, the Executive Director of Hope Australia and Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-International.

Russell, in his commentary, examines the reaction to the disability hate crime that occurred in a care facility in Sagamirihara, Japan where on July 26, 19 people with disabilities were brutally killed and another 26 people with disabilities were injured. This was the largest killing in Japan since the second world war.

Russell is essentially commenting on the media response to the killing in his article that he titles: Euthaansia - Disability hate crime: then the rest is silence.

Russell sets up his article by quoting from a letter from the killer;
In a letter the killer sent to the Japanese Parliament some time before his heinous actions, he wrote:

“I envision a world where a person with multiple disabilities can be euthanised, with an agreement from the guardians, when it is difficult for the person to carry out household and social activities. 

“I believe there is still no answer about the way of life for individuals with multiple disabilities. The disabled can only create misery.”

Bill Peace

Russell quotes several responses by disability leaders to the killing. He first quotes from Syracuse, New York, disability activist and academic Bill Peace wrote on his blog: 

“This hate crime and mass murder led to a sleepless night for me. What took place could have happened in any nation. It could have taken place in Omaha, Nebraska, Cambridge, England, Paris, France, or Syracuse, NY. As I read story after story I felt a chill go down my spine when I read the following words: ‘He was just an ordinary young fellow.’ 

“I have no doubt he was an ordinary young fellow. That is what makes ableism so frightening. People, typical people, think life with a disability is worse than death. I plan to go out to lunch with my son. We will likely stop at a cross walk and wait for a light to turn. A biped will likely stand near me. That biped might be thinking, ‘Shit, if I were paralysed I would prefer to be dead. That guy should be dead. He sucks up too much health-care dollars.’ 

“This is what scares me. The silence. How many silently wish we people with a disability did not exist. My concerns are shared by many who have a disability and more generally any person with an atypical body.”

In another Blog comment Peace states:

“The hate crime in Japan graphically and horrifically demonstrates that people with a disability are prone to being the victims of violence. That violence includes murder. How many more people need to die before ableism is acknowledged as a global problem. 

“The violence I refer to takes many forms. Hollywood knows that films that kill disabled characters for their own merciful end of life resonate well with audiences. 

“Police in the United States have killed a host of people with a disability. Parents who murder their disabled children are given light sentences for their crimes.

Dave Hinsburger

Russell also quotes from Canadian blogger and disability activist Dave Hingsburger:

“The discussion of and public endorsement of the concept of mercy killing of people with disabilities had taken root in this man with alarming ferocity. No doubt he will be spoken of as someone who has mental health issues, and maybe he does. But when you read what he says, what he says isn’t far from what most people have come to believe. 

“His statement to the police upon turning himself in that ‘it’s better that disabled people disappear’ isn’t a deranged rant by someone out of control, it’s a calm statement of fact that echoes the sentiment of many in society. 

“People with disabilities know this sentiment, we hear it, we experience it and we have come to fear what it will do. Our lives are devalued, our needs are seen as special and therefore burdensome, our rights are declared to be gifts rather than guarantees.”

Russell is asking the question that the disability community has a right to know. Why all the media silence concerning the largest mass killing in Japan since WWII?

Australia 1996 euthanasia debate, arguments opposing euthanasia remain intact.

This is an exerpt of a longer article published by Paul Russell on the Hope Australia website on August 5. 

Paul Russell

Paul Russell states that the arguements made twenty years ago to support The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 and oppose euthansia, remain intact today.

The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 was passed by both houses on the 25 March 1997. It became the first and only legislative measure anywhere in the world to completely overturn existing euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation. 

The following objections were argued by MPs who supported Kevin Andrew's initiative, perhaps the best speech was by the Member for the seat of Melbourne, The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP.

Tanner came to politics through university student movements and into the Australian Labor Party's Victorian faction known as the Socialist Left or simply 'SL'. That Tanner, a self-identified and career-long progressive-thinking politician should oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide once again highlights the reality that opposition to legislative change is not characterised by a 'left-right' divide any more than it can be said to be a division along religious lines, as Tanner himself notes.

The following excerpts are from his speech supporting the 'Andrews' Bill' given in the House of Representatives on the 28 October 1996 (headings have been added):

Hon. Lindsay Tanner

On the question of autonomy:

"But there is a very different question at stake here; that is, not whether in some individual circumstances there is something morally wrong, but whether the state should legalise and indeed can safely legalise such practices. This debate should not be about one or two individual experiences, not about our own experiences, but about the broader social question. Just as the question of capital punishment cannot be determined by one or two murders, by one or two gross and appalling examples of killing, neither should our view on euthanasia be determined by our own experiences of one or two personal tragedies. We must look beyond those experiences to the broader view of the interests of society at large and the interests of the individuals who make up society."

On Church v State:

"It has been argued that this bill put forward by the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews) is about the separation between church and state. I would disagree with that analysis. I think it is also worth noting that just because the churches take a particular view does not therefore make it wrong. Most of us would probably agree with the churches on a few fundamental issues like murder, rape, assault and so forth. So whether the churches take a position is really neither here nor there. 

"To me this is an issue about the relationship between state and citizen—not between church and state."

On the lack of safety:

"I am troubled by euthanasia because I think it is virtually impossible to draw safe boundaries, because I think it is virtually impossible to prevent abuses and mistakes and because I think it is virtually impossible to justify offering the option of assisted suicide to one category of people when you deny it to others. That is a necessary implication of the Northern Territory legislation."

Euthanasia as a misuse of power:

"I regard individual freedom in our society as essentially very fragile, as very vulnerable to misuse of state and bureaucratic power. Intrinsically, the state assuming the right to sanction killing of a citizen, for whatever reason, troubles me a great deal. Even with apparent consent, it worries me. I refer those in my part of the political spectrum, most of whom have a different point of view from me, to debates that have occurred on issues like the Australia Card (1), where the same sorts of concerns about fears of misuse—obviously not on the same life or death scale, but fundamentally the same framework—occurred. Others laughed and said, `You are paranoid, it is excessive,' and the like, but many on the Left had the same sorts of concerns there."

Colorado NDY and ADAPT Engage in Funeral March to Protest Colorado Assisted Suicide Ballot Measure

Press Release issued the morning of August 8, 2016!

Disability Activists from Not Dead Yet and ADAPT Engage in Funeral March 

to Protest Assisted Suicide Ballot Measure

Denver – Disability rights activists from ADAPT and Not Dead Yet will hold a funeral march from the Atlantis Community (201 S Cherokee St, Denver, CO 80223) to the Secretary of State Office (1700 Broadway #200, Denver, CO 80290) on Monday, August 8, 2016 to protest the assisted suicide measure being considered for the Colorado ballot. The group plans to step off from the Atlantis Community at 10:15 a.m. and march north to the Secretary of State’s office where they will have a wreath laying ceremony shortly after the noon hour.

“We are engaging in this street theater to educate the community about how legalization of assisted suicide will cause people to needlessly lose their lives through mistakes, coercion and abuse,” said Dawn Russell, ADAPT advocate and Atlantis Community board member.

“Elder abuse, and abuse of people with disabilities, are a rising problem,” said Anita Cameron, an ADAPT advocate, and Not Dead Yet board member. “With legalized physician-assisted suicide, an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug — no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?” she said.

“Colorado’s suicide rate is among the highest in the nation,” said Cameron. “This bill will promote suicide to one class of disabled citizens, rather than provide suicide prevention. That is discrimination.”

These bills simply do not have any effective safeguards to prevent abuse,” said Robin Stephens, a longtime disability rights activist and Not Dead Yet board member. “Death certificates are required to be falsified, no witness is required at the death, and a greedy heir can witness the request for a lethal prescription. Colorado does not need this initiative.”

ADAPT is a grassroots disability rights organization with chapters in 30 states. It uses nonviolent direct action in order to bring attention and awareness to the lack of civil rights the disability community experiences.

Not Dead Yet is a national, grassroots disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination against old, ill and disabled people. Not Dead Yet helps organize and articulate opposition to these practices based on secular social justice arguments. Not Dead Yet demands the equal protection of the law for the targets of so called “mercy killing” whose lives are seen as worth-less.

Not Dead Yet
497 State Street
Rochester, NY 14608
(708) 420-0539

Children with Trisomy 13/18 are not incompatible with life.

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

For many years, children born with Trisomy 13 or 18 were labeled as having a lethal anomoly. The parents of children with Trisomy 13/18 were often refused medical treatment or urged to refuse treatment based on a belief that the child would die anyway.

In the past few years new research indicates that many children with Trisomy 13/18 can survive and some of them are doing well. This information has resulted in some parents wanting medical treatment for their children resulting in a few physicians becoming treatment experts for these children.

Dr. John D. Lantos wrote an article that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on July 26: Trisomy 13 and 18 - Treatment Decisions in a Stable Gray Zone.

In the article Lantos explains that 30 years ago pediatric residents were taught that trisomy 13/18 were lethal congenital anomalies. He wrote:

Parents were told that these conditions were incompatible with life. There was a tacit consensus that life-sustaining treatment was not medically indicated. Clinical experience usually was consistent with this self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Occasionally, though, some infants with these conditions did survive. The children were invariably institutionalized and described as severely impaired. These case reports were considered as the rare exceptions that proved the rule.

Lantos then explains that everything changed in the age of social media. 

In the age of social media, however, everything changed. Parents share stories and videos, showing their happy 4 and 5-year-old children with these conditions. Survival, it turns out, is not as rare as once thought. Children who were not institutionalized looked happy, cared for, and loved. It became increasingly awkward to describe these conditions as incompatible with life to parents who had ready access to information showing that it was not true.

The story of Bella, the daughter of Senator Rick Santorum, became a well known story about the survival of a child with Trisomy 13. 

May 2012, I wrote a story about Lilliana Dennis was a child with Trisomy 18. Lilliana is now 5 years old and continues to thrive.

Brandon Bosma who is 18-years-old speaks about living with Trisomy 18.

Link to an article based on families with Trisomy 13/18 children.

In his article, Dr Lantos then outlines the results of a new study by Dr Katherine Nelson titled: Survival and Surgical Interventions for Children with Trisomy 13 and 18 also published on July 26 in JAMA. Lantos states:

The study by Nelson and colleagues in this issue of JAMA describes survival and use of surgery in a large population-based cohort of children with trisomy 13 and 18 over a long period (21 years,until 2013) in Ontario, Canada. Of 174 children with trisomy 13, the median survival was 12.5 days; of 254 children with trisomy 18, median survival was 9 days. However, 12.9% of children with trisomy 13 and 9.8% with trisomy 18 survived to 10 years. Of children with trisomy 13, 23.6% underwent surgery with a 1-year survival after the first surgery of 70.7%, and of children with trisomy 18, 13.8% underwent surgery with a 1-year survival after the first surgery of 68.6%. The authors did not comment on how many deaths followed decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. 

In the authors’ review of population-based studies, it appears that survival rates are increasing for infants with trisomy 13 and 18. Thirty years ago, no reports indicated that these infants survived until age 1 year. Over the next few decades, 1-year survival rates increased to 5% to 10%. In the study by Nelson and et al, 19.8% of infants with trisomy 13 and 12.6% of infants with trisomy 18 lived past their first birthday. As with the study by Nelson et al, no prior studies report the percentage of deaths that follow decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatment but, given the prevailing mindset, the number is probably high. Thus, reported rates of survival must be low estimates of the true possibility of survival. The increased survival over time is almost certainly a result of decisions to provide more treatment.

It is important to state that most Trisomy 13/18 children are still being denied medical treatment. There is no way to know how many of those children would have survived or thrived, like Brandon and Lilliana, had treatment been provided.

Dr Lantos offers insight into medical decisions based on "quality of life."

The concept of quality of life is too vague and subjective to be helpful as a criterion for deciding about the appropriateness of treatment. No one can know with certainty what any infant is thinking, feeling, or experiencing, but what is observed can be interpreted. Children with trisomy13 and 18 smile and laugh. They are not in pain. They give and receive love. These factors suggest that their subjective quality of life is not so poor that life-prolonging treatment should not be offered.

Dr Lantos concludes that parents should make the decision to provide or withhold treatment, but that accurate definitions needs to be established.

I personally thank Barbara Farlow for being an advocate for children with Trisomy 13/18. 

I believe that children with disabilities, who are not actually dying, should be given a chance to live. The human family have variable characteristics, abilities and disabilities. I consider all human beings as equally deserving of care and support otherwise society becomes locked into a philosophy that some lives are better off dead, which leads to ending of life decisions based on discrimination and fear.

Will Ontario's new drug policy drive people to euthanasia?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 17, the Canadian government legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. Since only a minority of Canadians have access to effective pain and symptom management, will legalizing euthanasia drive people to a state sanctioned death rather than receiving proper care? During the Bill C-14 debate the government was urged to increase access to palliative care.

Last week the Ontario government announced that on January 1, 2017; the government will stop covering the cost of certain high-dose pain killing drugs. 

Even though the government's concern with opioid addiction is important, will the new blanket policy drive people with chronic pain or other painful medical conditions to euthanasia?

According to a CBC news report:

Ontario will stop paying for higher-strength opioid medications through its Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program next January as part of its strategy to address the growing problem of addiction to the painkillers. 

To help fight what it calls the "growing problem of opioid addiction in Ontario," the province's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced last week that it would stop paying for the following higher-strength long-acting opioids from its ODB drug formulary as of January 2017:

• Morphine, 200 mg tablets. 

• Hydromorphone, 24 mg and 30 mg capsules. 

• Fentanyl, 75 mcg/hr and 100 mcg/hr patches. 

• The province will also delist 50 mg tablets of Meperidine, also known as Demerol.

There is a real concern with opioid addiction, according to the CBC news report:

Deaths linked to opioid use in Canada have soared in recent years.

A 2014 study found that opioids were related to one in eight deaths among young people in Ontario. 

Rates of opioid-related death in the province increased by 242 per cent between 1991 and 2010, rising from 12.2 deaths per million in 1991 (127 deaths annually) to 41.6 deaths per million in 2010 (550 deaths annually).

I recognize that opioid overdose has become a serious health problem, but I also recognize that people with chronic pain management issues and the terminally ill who live with painful symptoms require effective pain control.

Now that euthanasia is legal, not providing effective pain control will cause some people to ask their physician for a lethal injection.

Palliative care expert, Dr Darren Cargill, expressed concern for his patients in a letter published in the Windsor Star. Cargill argues that the Ontario Liberal government did not communicate with frontline caregivers when they made this decision. He wrote:

In their zeal to curb drug abuse, the government has acted rashly and without the proper input from frontline healthcare providers. 

Palliative care patients rely on many of the medications removed from this formulary every day to manage their pain from cancer and other serious medical conditions. 

Barriers already exist for patients trying to access high-quality pain management in Ontario, and this move by the government will further hurt patients. These barriers include the Palliative Care Facilitated Access (PCFA) program which requires updating and alterations to return the program to its intended purpose: to improve patient access to palliative care medications. 

No one will argue that more needs to be done to prevent prescription drugs from getting into the hands of children and those who would abuse these drugs as a result of an addiction disorder. 

However, unilaterally removing these drugs without considering the unintended consequences is irresponsible.

An article published in the Huffington Post suggests that most of the drug overdose deaths are from illegal drugs that are produced in China and Mexico. The article states:

The Drug Enforcement Agency in the U.S. also points out that the increase in fentanyl deaths is largely the result of clandestinely produced supplies rather than legal prescriptions having been diverted. The illegal fentanyl is mostly manufactured in China and Mexico.

The Huffington Post article then quotes from two doctors who prove that the Ontario government drug enforcement policy will not work.

Dr Chris Giorshev of Barrie wrote that "There is no evidence that the recent measures will do anything meaningful other than torture legitimate pain/palliative patients" and "most of the problems arise from the illegal fentanyl coming from China -- not from the patches prescribed by us. And the smaller strength pills are actually easier to move on the streets -- so reducing the pill size will have no effect." 

Dr Geoffrey Purdell-Lewis of Burlington, Ontario said that "Not every patient prescribed opioids gets addicted" and that "Some patients appear to need more than a morphine equivalent dosage of 200mg per day and these patients can do well on somewhat bigger doses, especially with careful and strict monitoring and support. Much more thought is needed before the '200mg portcullis' is brought down."

Whether or not the Ontario government's drug policy will deter drug addiction, it will also limit palliative and chronic care specialists from providing effective pain control and it may drive some people to seek death by lethal injection now that euthanasia has been legalized.

NDY Release: “Me Before You” Protesters Call For PSA To Prevent Copycat Suicides

Contacts:

Diane Coleman 708-420-0539

John Kelly 617-536-5140

For Immediate Release:

“Me Before You” Protesters Call For PSA To Prevent Copycat Suicides

Disability rights advocates who protested the film “Me Before You” in cities across the United States are calling on Warner Brothers to add a public service announcement to further releases of the film to help prevent copycat suicides.

In a letter sent today to Kevin Tsujihara, CEO of Warner Brothers, 19 national and 25 state, local and regional disability organizations stated:

“The public’s primary frame of reference can be shaped by what people see in movies and television. Storylines like this perpetuate stigma and discrimination based on disability. We are especially concerned that audiences will believe the desire to kill oneself is normal for those who need a high level of care. This inaccurate belief has been perpetuated by Warner Brothers track record of distributing other films, such as Million Dollar Baby and The Sea Inside, both of which emphasized the same dangerous message. 

“. . . Therefore, to reduce the risk of a “copycat” suicide effect, as well as negative impacts on individuals and families in the midst of critical health care decisions, the responsible thing to do is add a public service announcement to online and home entertainment releases at the beginning of the film.”

The public service announcement recommended by the disability organizations is Live On. Disabled Lives Are Worth Living, produced by the Center for Disability Rights in Rochester, New York.

Disability protests of Me Before You received substantial press coverage in late May and June. Members of Not Dead Yet UK protested at the London premier on May 24th, which garnered significant coverage (Guardian, Buzzfeed) during the protest and in the days following.

The last big example of this tired theme was Million Dollar Baby, which came out before the major growth of social media but still resulted in protests covered in the New York Times,” said Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead Yet (USA).

Disability rights writers and bloggers also blasted the film for its oppressive portrayal of living with significant disabilities like quadriplegia. Examples include articles by disability studies scholar Bill Peace and activist and filmmaker Dominick Evans. Some have been featured in mainstream outlets like Emily Ladau’s article in Salon, Lauren West’s in Huffington Post and Ben Mattlin’s in the Chicago Tribune.

Not Dead Yet’s New England regional director John Kelly has the same level of spinal cord injury as Will Traynor, the lead male character in Me Before You. “Book and screenplay author JoJo Moyes admits she knows nothing about quadriplegics,” said Kelly, “yet her ignorance is allowed to promote the idea that people like me are better off dead. No one’s suicide should be treated noble and inspirational. Our suicides should be viewed as tragedies like anyone else’s.”

More information this topic:

• People with disabilities comment on Me Before You.
• Boycott - Me Before You - Disability Death Porn.