Monday, September 12, 2016

The Euthanasia Deception documentary.

Purchase The Euthanasia Deception for$30 for 1 copy or $100 for 4 copies or $200 for 10 copies.


Order by paying online (link) or by emailing: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

The Euthanasia Deception is now available for rent or purchase online through 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 film!


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 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. 

The Euthanasia Deception features; 
  • Professor Tom Mortier, a Belgian man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia,
  • Hendrik Reitsma's grand-dad died by 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 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, 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 by credit card or paypal) or order by emailing: info@epcc.ca or calling toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

7 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?