Friday, September 30, 2016

The Euthanasia Deception documentary.


THE EUTHANASIA DECEPTION - DOCUMENTARY at: www.vulnerablefilm.com
NOW AVAILABLE ON DVD AND ONLINE
“A thought-provoking, emotionally-gripping film that will impact hearts and minds. It effectively dismantles the fallacies of euthanasia proponents’ appeals to compassion and autonomy.” 
- Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus, Author of The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.
“Stunning documentary. 
No doubt this film will save lives and prevent the destruction of a large number of families." 
- Anne LeBlanc, Rochester, NY

There are two ways to view The Euthanasia Deception.

Purchase a DVD or View Online at www.vulnerableflim.com

Purchase The Euthanasia Deception DVD for: $30 for 1 DVD, $100 for 4 DVD's or $200 for 10 DVD's (add HST to all order).

Link to the trailer.

The Euthanasia Deception is also available to rent or purchase online at Vimeo On Demand. Detailed instructions: 
  1. Go to the film’s Web site www.vulnerablefilm.com and click rent or download. 
  2. Click "Rent or Download Here”. You will be directed to Vimeo On Demand. 
  3. Scroll down and click on the version you wish: Canadian or International Version 
  4. You will be asked to join Vimeo, a free service, with no obligation. 
  5. You will be prompted to pay $3.00 CAD (or equivalent) for a 48 hour rental download or $30.00 to purchase a downloadable version of the film. Most credit cards or Paypal accepted.
  6. Be sure to enter your email to receive updates. 
  7. Enjoy the Euthanasia Deception documentary!
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) in association with DunnMedia is pleased to announce the International release of The Euthanasia Deception, complete with interactive website and resource materials at: www.vulnerablefilm.com

The fifty-two minute documentary features powerful testimonies from Belgium and Canada, exposing the three main deceptions used by the assisted dying lobby:
  • Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as compassion or mercy.
  • Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as a form of autonomy. 
  • The myth that safeguards can protect people is exposed. 
The Euthanasia Deception features; 
  • Professor Tom Mortier, a Belgian man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia,
  • Dr Catherine Dopchie, a palliative physician in Belgium,
  • Dr Benoit Beusselinck, a Belgian oncologist and palliative care doctor in 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,
  • Hendrik Reitsma's grand-dad died by assisted death without request in the Netherlands,
  • 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, 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.



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 + HST by credit card or paypal) or order by email: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

15 comments:

thedevilcorp said...

Good post.

MRH said...

The links go to the regular donation page. Is there a way to indicate I am purchasing a copy of the documentary? Thank you for your amazing work and dedication - So needed and timely!

Alex Schadenberg said...

Simply email us at: info@epcc.ca or call us at: 1-877-439-3348.

boats boat said...

Mr. Schadenberg, you have made deceptive comments in this article: http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2016/09/09/psychological-suffering-now-a-qualifier-for-euthanasia

First off you incorrectly assume that because those people had depression, they were "vulnerable" and unable to make a competent and rational decision.

Sir, with all due respect. You are not a psychiatrist, physician, or a bioethicist. Those people were found competent by psychiatrists and doctors to make the decision. That's one of your claims debunked.

Second, you seem to imply that anybody with depression can waltz in and receive euthanasia in the Netherlands. This is blatantly and insultingly wrong. Euthanasia is only permitted for severe treatment-resistant depression, where people have spent many years to decades seeking treatment and have not gotten better. Furthermore you offer no evidence that those patients were coerced in any shape or form. Second claim debunked.

I want you to read this story about this girl in Norway who suffers from severe treatment-resistant depression and has been locked up for 10 years straight because she wants to die and euthanasia is illegal in Norway: http://www.vg.no/spesial/2016/lenket/

What do you say to her? Being locked up in restraints for 10 years, failing treatment, agonizing to die every day. Her existence is beyond hellish and she will likely spend the rest of her life like this, watching friends and family die until death finally frees her.

You would not have the gall to look this girl into her eyes and say "Sorry, but you're mentally ill and thus vulnerable so if this was the only way to keep you alive then it's necessary!"

Good day sir, I am glad Canada did the right thing with reason, compassion and freedom winning. People with severe unamenable physical and mental conditions that cause them unbearable agony and suffering can have a dignified end, and not suffer because "suffering is god's gift."

Alex Schadenberg said...

Dear boats boat:

First of all, I do not publish comments from people who refuse to list their name, but since you were attacking me I thought I should publish the comment.

Second, you are wrong on most of your comments. The first point is that the euthanasia clinic in Belgium is responsible for most of the deaths for psychiatric reasons. If you read the commentary by researchers on the subject you will notice that all is not careful with euthanasia for psychological suffering, as you assume.

Read: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca/2016/02/euthanasia-for-psychiatric-reasons-in.html

Read: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca/2016/01/assisted-suicide-more-than-meets-eye.html

As for the case in Norway, I would respond by asking how will killing her help her? Then I would ask: Can you prove that she wants to die, or dies she want relief from her psychological condition. Since I am not a psychiatrist, I will not suggest that her case cannot be treated.

Alex Schadenberg

boats boat said...

I created this google account to mainly comment on music videos on YouTube, hence why I did not use my real name so I apologize. My real name is Alexander.

First off it is irrelevant as to if one clinic is responsible for most of the psychiatric patients euthanasias requests. This is like because planned parenthood performs most abortions in the US, the practice should be banned. If it was done according to the law (and you have yet to indicate otherwise) as well as the doctors and psychiatrists ruling them competent, then there is no issue. When you can prove that the vast majority of these cases were not done by the law and did not follow the guidelines, euthanized without explicit requests, or most of the psychiatric patients with severe unamenable conditions who sought euthanasia being mentally incompetent, then you would have a point. You don't.

The Scott Kim et al study does not prove this. I have read the full study, and not the abstract or the cherry-picked parts on the news sites.

In the Kim study, only one case was determined by the government to have violated the guidelines and pertaining to the assisted-dying dying legislation.

Assuming you have read the study, most of the 21 patients who were intially refused EAS by doctors when they first requested were not refused because those patients were mentally incompetent. But because the doctors felt that they did not have the sufficient information and/or knowledge to determine if their case fulfilled the requirements for Euthanasia.

Even if we were to assume that the majority of the 21 patients had their first time requests refused because they were not competent (again this wasn't the case) or that their doctors felt their condition wasn't grevious and irremediable or that they did not possess enough knowledge or information to say they fulfilled the necessary criteria, this was not the majority of patients. Only 31%. So the majority of patients had their requests granted on the first-request without being refused or disagreement amongst the doctors and psychiatrists.

The best you can argue here is to make sure the oversight stricter for euthanasia pertaining to severe treatment-resistant psychological conditions. Not a full ban.

"What would allowing that Norwegian girl euthanasia do"

It would allow a dignified end to her beyond hellish suffering. This woman has been locked up for 10 years, in restraints, she agonizes to die every single day. Her quality of life is so terrible that even words to describe it don't do it justice.

Do you think anybody in this world should ever have to live a life like this woman? 10 years in forcible treatment, locked up in a ward, in restraints and she has gotten worse, not better. Even mass-murderers in Norway like Anders Breivik in Norway are treated better.

You seek to blanket-ban euthanasia for such cases. You are aligned with the Christian right who see such suffering as a gift from god. With all due respect you have a lack of empathy when it comes to people like this girl.

You can trot out your cherry-picked stories of how people with severe debilitating conditions physical or psychological that cause immense suffering being "glad that they did not choose euthanasia." And I can cite cases of people suffering from such conditions begging for a dignified end.

Ak Rhodes said...

Boats boat:

Scenario: You are suffering.
I see your suffering.
I ask one yes or no only question: "You don't really want to live like this, do you?"
Yes or no. Let me know what your answer is.

1. Cherry picked. As in when problems were ignored in the Royal Commission's own initial report giving euthanasia in Canada a great approval before the fact?
2. Cherry picked. As in the same panel being loaded with people for - and not against the practice?
3. People with mental illnesses are already arguing for death. One is in Ontario. I have heard of others in Manitoba, although there is no reporting on that. Which is easier - treating a mental illness over months or years, or offering a fast end?
4. Vulnerability can be subtle. People in hospital or under care are vulnerable - hence a vulnerable persons background check for medical and other types. So we have this as an operational reality - you have not once mentioned how your protections would work. Your answer to this person in Norway is, rather than get her better care, out of restraints, or advocate for her life - is to advocate for her death.
That oversimplifies the situation: you are now offering death instead of any other treatment.
5. Are you willing to push the needle plunger? Why not?
6. Have you helped anyone to die? Why not?

Cautionary tales said...

"Sir, with all due respect. You are not a psychiatrist, physician, or a bioethicist. Those people were found competent by psychiatrists and doctors to make the decision. That's one of your claims debunked."

Boat boat you have a very great faith in the medical profession however in my country I know that doctors are by no means infallible and I presume the case will be the same in your country. Getting three doctors to agree won't solve this problem because doctors hate to disagree with each other and often work inside a closed shop.

Non psychotic psychiatric illness is eminently treatable unless there are other factors involved, which there unfortunately often are, such as disturbed family dynamics or severe personality disorders. In the latter case the person would not be competent to make a decision about legalised suicide. The issue is therefore about poor medical treatment or lack of recognition of psychosocial precipitants, not about euthanasia.

I suspect you are probably in your twenties and come from certain places in Europe in which case you will find this hard to understand if you don't remember a time when physicians did not kill patients at their request

boats boat said...

Continuation of my reaponse, I apologize for having to make two posts:

>"I suspect you are probably in your twenties and come from certain places in Europe in which case you will find this hard to understand if you don't remember a time when physicians did not kill patients at their request"

As time passes, society progresses. We abandon outdated beliefs as we gain a greater understanding of our world. The goal of physicians is to reduce and prevent suffering by treating physical and mental illnesses. But in cases where all reasonable attempts at treatment have been exhausted, the patient suffers from a condition that causes immense and constant suffering as well as being unamenable, with the patient requesting to die on a constant basis and is judged to be competent, it is not unethical to allow the patient an end to his/her suffering.

boats boat said...

Second part:

>I suspect you are probably in your twenties and come from certain places in Europe in which case you will find this hard to understand if you don't remember a time when physicians did not kill patients at their request

As time passes, society progresses. We abandon outdated beliefs as we gain a greater understanding of our world. The goal of physicians is to reduce and prevent suffering by treating physical and mental illnesses. But in cases where all reasonable attempts at treatment have been exhausted, the patient suffers from a condition that causes immense and constant suffering as well as being unamenable, as well as the patient requesting to die on a consistent tsent basis and is judged to be competent, it is not unethical to allow the patient an end to his/her suffering.

boats boat said...

May I inquire as to why my comment is not being approved? I don't recall use expletives, insults or calling anybody names.

Alex Schadenberg said...

I have published your comments. I publish comments unless the comment lacks a name or attacks someone, or says something inappropriate.

boats boat said...

My first part of my reply is not being approved. May I enquire as to why?

I will repost again.

boats boat said...

never once said doctors are infallible. You are putting words in my mouth and arguing for points in which I did not contend.

No system is 100% perfect. It is impossible. Just because a system isn't 100% infalliable does not mean said system should not be allowed. Your logic would be equivalent to me saying that because crime is not allowed under law, but still occurs this means there should be no laws against crime.

In any profession or system, the best anybody can do is try to get the closest to perfection. The Netherlands protections are sufficent enough, and the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the system is being widely abused. You cannot. Link a study or a credible source indicating so.

You automatically assume everybody in a hospital must be vulnerable and thus unable to consent to euthanasia. Not only is this insulting and plain wrong, this is an assumption you make with no evidence proving so. These people are not toddlers yet you treat all of them as one.

The girl in Norway has spent 10 years in treatment and in restraints. You claim that there should be better mental treatment. I agree but I also agree that euthanasia should be allowed for cases that are simply untreatable and where said patient has spent so many years to multiple decades in treatment and has simply not gotten better. This woman has wanted to die consistently for 10 years. She has been in treatment for 10 years locked in a hospital. I argue that her illness is not responding to treatment and her suffering is simply immense and agonizing. Her existence is beyond hellish. Nobody should be forced to live like this.

In regards to better mental care and allowing euthanasia, the two are not in opposition to one another. Did research or treatment and potential cures for terminal cancer stop because terminal patients are allowed euthanasia? No. Not in Canada, Netherlands or Belgium. Or anywhere else.

Both of you fail to understand that there are mental illnesses that are simply treatment resistant and treatment does not work.

Again, mental treatment does not work for everyone. Psychiatry has limitations and you need to accept that.

>"Non psychotic psychiatric illness is eminently treatable unless there are other factors involved, which there unfortunately often are, such as disturbed family dynamics or severe personality disorders. In the latter case the person would not be competent to make a decision about legalised suicide."

Simply and utterly false. Severe personality disorders does not automatically imply mental incompetence. People with severe treatment resistant BPD have received assisted dying in the Netherlands and and were deemed to be competent to make that decision by psychiatrists. Unless you have a degree in psychiatry, or can link evidence that proves people with severe personality disorders are automatically incompetent to consent to assisted dying, your claim has no grounds. And not all mental illnesses respond to treatment. Treatment resistant depression is a thing. ECT which has the highest response rates for severe depression only works for about 50% of TRD with a high rate of relapse.

I quote:

>A round of ECT is effective for about 50% of people with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, whether it is unipolar or bipolar.[243]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder#Electroconvulsive_therapy

Anthony Rader said...

to boats boat,
Well, Alexander, all statistics aside, essentially you think it’s okay to euthanize people because of extreme, untreatable suffering and out of empathy for their position. I would argue most of Canada feels that way too. it is difficult when the news papers drag out another ‘cherry picked’ example of an individual who wants end their torment with medically assisted suicide. Indeed, I also feel their predicament and their need to finish the agony in which they are living. Your case of the Norwegian girl is heart rending and one must empathize with her. But here’s the thing. Euthanasia is still killing. Human life has to be held sacred for the greater good. By allowing euthanasia we’ve crossed a line. And now, with the press of the crowd behind us, it’s going to be very difficult to go back. The problem I have with all this is that by allowing medically assisted suicide, we have opened a pandora’s box that we have no control over, despite all assurances to the otherwise. I’ll give you an example: abortion. No one like this one, but I choose this because it shares many similarities with euthanasia. Abortion was allowed in Canada in 1969, sometime around when Roe vs Wade was happening in the US in 1973. I was young in those days and remember reading a newspaper that assured us that abortion would only be allowed in desperate situations and only in the first trimester and only a few were expected to be performed each year. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? You want statistics as to where we stand now? Canada is now somewhere around 3 million and the US is about 60 million. And Mr. Trudeau has argued for full term abortions. What started as something to help ease the suffering of a few has ended in nothing short of a holocaust with most of society standing numbly by or actively supporting it. What I’m trying to say here is that abortion also came in with good motives and intentions, a firm desire to abate suffering, but in the long run has had disastrous results. It is the taking of a human life, be it an embryo or a competent individual who desires to die, by another that we are talking about here. We are empowering others to take our lives. We are empowering the state to take our lives. We are institutionalizing this through law. You say that although the system isn’t 100% perfect we should trust it. Really? I don’t think so. Abortions used to be illegal. Embryos and fetuses had the human right to live. Just like these, the law can give you the right to live or it can give you the right to die. It doesn’t seem to go both ways. So then, looking at how it’s gone with human embryos over the last 50 years with abortion, what makes you so sure that euthanasia won't have similar, unintended, disastrous results for society 50 years from now? The answer is, you can't be sure and that is why this should be opposed. There are some things that are difficult to fix. Human suffering is one of them. The right of the individual should not trump the good of all.

Printfriendly