ALEX SCHADENBERG

MacDonald proposes new bill to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland

2012-01-27T12:21:00.001-05:00

Another year, another attempt to legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia. A couple of weeks ago we learned that the euthanasia lobby in South Australia was planning to try to legalize euthanasia again, and now we learn the new strategy by Margo MacDonald and the euthanasia lobby in Scotland.

Margo MacDonald

On December 1, 2010; the Scottish Parliament stunningly defeated by a vote of 85 to 16, that was proposed by Margo MacDonald to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

MacDonald has has made it clear that she intends to introduce a new bill under the title: Assisted Suicide (Scotland) bill. She is circulating a consultation document until April 30, 2012.

When reading my assessment of her previous bill, you will notice that MacDonald used imprecise language to cover-up her intention to legalize wide-open access to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The current consultation document is an outline of the bill, but not the actual bill. It is difficult to assess her actual intentions until we see the actual legislation. MacDonald claimed that her previous bill did allow euthanasia and yet it clearly did allow euthanasia.

MacDonald is "consulting" with the Scottish people so that when she introduces the actual bill she can say that her bill represents the "will" of the Scottish people.

The Care Not Killing Alliance in Scotland is developing a stragegy to defeat the upcoming attempt by Margo MacDonald to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland.http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?category=12

The Leblanc case in Quebec - Further thoughts.

2012-01-26T16:31:00.001-05:00

On October 31, René Duval, the lawyer for Ginette Leblanc submitted the notice of claim in Trois-Rivières Quebec, asking the Quebec Superior Court to overturn Section 241b of the Criminal Code in order for Mme Leblanc to die by assisted suicide. Ginette Leblanc lives with ALS.

The Notice of Claim in the Leblanc case stated that it was challenging the constitutionality of Section 241b of the Criminal Code, which is the assisted suicide act. It did not indicate openly indicate that it was challenging any other section of the Criminal Code. After reading the Notice of Claim, I was convinced that the Leblanc case was limited to Section 241b of the Criminal Code, but after speaking to Margaret Dore and after reading her commentary on the Leblanc case, I am convinced that the Leblanc case quietly seeks to legalize euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and Vivre dans la Dignité are seeking to co-intervene in the Leblanc case.

The Leblanc case appeared to be taking a less aggressive approach than the Carter case in British Columbia that is clearly trying to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Carter Talking Points. Carter was heard by Justice Lynn Smith in Vancouver BC from November 14 - December 16, 2011. EPC and EPC - BC co-intervened in the Carter case and made its legal presentation before Justice Smith on December 14.

Margaret Dore, the fabulous lawyer and elder abuse advocate from Seattle Washington, pointed out that Section 11 of the Leblanc Notice of Claim states:

11. Due to the physical limits, the plaintiff will not without the help of a health care professional and / or that of a person acting under the supervision of such business, obtain and / or administer medication and / or the necessary treatment (s) to end her life.

To administer medication, would constitute an act of euthanasia and not an act of assisted suicide.

The other point that Margaret makes, which was not missed by myself, is that Canada's assisted suicide act does not refer to physicians, therefore striking down Section 241b of the Criminal Code would grant anyone the right to assist the suicide of another.

The Leblanc case went further by stating in Section 11 that: "a person acting under the supervision of a health care professional" could assist the suicide. This traditionally includes family members.

In conclusion, it appears that if the Quebec court accepts the pleadings in the Leblanc case, that in fact they would be decriminalizing assisted suicide and they would be, under the cover of imprecise language, decriminalizing euthanasia.

If I am wrong, please make your case.

The Leblanc Case in Quebec: A Recipe for Elder Abue and a Threat to the Individual

2012-01-26T15:01:00.004-05:00

"Those who believe that legal assisted suicide/ euthanasia will assure their autonomy and choice are naive."

William Reichel, MD
Montreal Gazette, May 30, 2010[1]

By Margaret Dore

January 26, 2012

A. Introduction

Leblanc vs. Attorney General of Canada brings a constitutional challenge to Canada's law prohibiting aiding or abetting a suicide. Leblanc also seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as a medical treatment. In 2010, a bill in the Canadian Parliament seeking a similar result was overwhelmingly defeated.

Legalization of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia under Leblanc will create new paths of elder abuse. This is contrary to Canadian public policy. Legalization will also empower the healthcare system to the detriment of individual patients. There will be other problems.

B. Parliament Rejected Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

On April 21, 2010, Parliament defeated Bill C-384, which would have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[2] The vote was 228 to 59.[3]

C. The Notice of Civil Claim

In Leblanc, the Notice of Civil Claim seeks to strike down § 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[4] § 241(b) states:

"Every one who . . . (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."[5]

If § 241(b) would be struck down, it appears that any person, without restriction, would be allowed to assist another person's suicide.

The Notice of Claim also seeks to allow a healthcare professional, not necessarily a doctor, and/or a person acting under the professional's supervision, to "obtain and/or administer medication and/or the necessary treatment to end [the plaintiff's] life."[6] This request, to allow someone to actively administer a lethal modality to another person, is a request for euthanasia. The Canadian Medical Association states:

"Euthanasia means someone taking active measures to end life."[7]

In the context of traditional medical treatment, a person acting under the "supervision" of a healthcare professional would include a family member.[8] An example would be an adult child who administers medication to a parent under the supervision of a doctor who is not present.[9] This would typically be in a home setting.[10]

The Notice of Claim does not define any particular eligibility for assisted suicide/euthanasia other than a description of the plaintiff.[11] She is a disabled woman with ALS.[12]

D. A Comparison to the United States

In the United States, there are two states where assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington.[13] The laws in these states were enacted via ballot initiatives, which are similar to a referendum in Canada.[14] No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.[15]

The Oregon and Washington laws apply to patients predicted to have less than six months to live, who are typically age 65 or older.[16] The statutes have safeguards, for example, two doctors are required to approve a lethal prescription; there are also waiting periods.[17] These laws nonetheless leave patients unprotected against elder abuse, coercion and even murder. Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, states:

"With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon, [elder abuse] perpetrators can . . . take a 'legal' route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over the administration. . . . [E]ven if a patient struggled, 'who would know?'" [18]

E. Elder Abuse

Preventing elder abuse is official Government of Canada policy.[19] Elder abuse includes physical, psychological and financial abuse.[20] Financial abuse is the most commonly reported type.[21] Elder abuse is, however, largely unreported and can be very difficult to detect.[22] This is due in part to the reluctance of victims to report. The Government of Canada website states:

"Older adults may feel ashamed or embarrassed to tell anyone that they are being abused by someone they trust."[23]

Will Johnson, MD, echoes these themes as follows:

"I see elder abuse in my practice, often perpetrated by family members and caregivers. A desire for money or an inheritance is typical. To make it worse, the victims protect the perpetrators. In one case, an older woman knew that her son was robbing her blind and lied to protect him. Why? Family loyalty, shame, and fear that confronting the abuser will cost love and care. . . .

Under current law, abusers take their victims to the bank and to the lawyer for a new will. With legal assisted suicide, the next stop would be the doctor’s office for a lethal prescription. How exactly are we going to detect the victimization when we can’t do it now?"[24]

If assisted suicide and/or euthanasia are legalized via Leblanc, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, which is contrary to Government of Canada public policy. For this reason alone, the relief requested in Leblanc should be denied.

F. Empowering the Healthcare System

In Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1997, patients desiring treatment under the Oregon Health Plan have been offered assisted suicide instead.[25] The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[26] Each wanted treatment.[27] The Plan offered them suicide instead.[28]

Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this scenario as a celebration of their "choice." Wagner said: “I'm not ready to die.”[29] Stroup said: “This is my life they’re playing with.”[30]

Wagner and Stroup were steered to suicide. Moreover, it was the Oregon Health Plan, a government entity, doing the steering. If assisted suicide and/or euthanasia are legalized in Canada, the Canadian health care system will be similarly empowered. Indeed, even the plaintiff could find herself pushed to her death before she is ready. She could be a Canadian "Barbara Wagner." Her "choice" would be compromised and/or denied.

F. Suicide Contagion.

Oregon's suicide rate, which excludes suicides under its physician-assisted suicide law, has been "increasing significantly" since 2000.[31] Just three years prior, Oregon legalized assisted suicide.[32] This increased suicide rate is consistent with a suicide contagion.[33] In other words, legalizing one type of suicide encouraged other suicides. In Canada, preventing suicide is a significant public health issue.[34]

G. Conclusion

In Leblanc, the relief requested should be denied.

***

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia with a focus on the US and Canada. In November 2010, she appeared as an expert witness before the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity of the National Assembly of Quebec, Canada. She was an amicus curie in Baxter v. Montana, which is similar to Leblanc v. Attorney General of Canada.

Ms. Dore has been licensed to practice law in Washington State since 1986. She is a former Law Clerk to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. She worked for the United States Department of Justice for one year. She has published multiple articles on elder abuse topics and against assisted suicide and euthanasia.

For more information, see: http://www.choiceillusion.org/ and http://www.margaretdore.com/.

[1] William Reichel, MD, Letter to the Editor, "Euthanasia doesn't assure choice," The Montreal Gazette, May 30, 2010.
[2] See "How'd They Vote?: A Resource for Political Accountability, Bill C-384, available at http://howdtheyvote.ca/bill.php?id=2053 (Last visited October 24, 2011).
[3] Id.
[4] Leblanc v Attorney General of Canada, Province of Quebec, District of Three-Rivers, No. 400-17-002642-110, Notice of Civil Claim, October 31, 2011, page 3.
[5] R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 241, Counselling or aiding suicide
[6] Notice of Civil Claim at note 4, ¶ 11.
[7] Canadian Medical Association, "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide," available at http://www.cma.ca/index.php?ci_id=53580&la_id=1
[8] Per Will Johnston, MD
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Notice of Civil Claim at note 4
[12] Id.
[13] The Oregon assisted suicide law is codified as Oregon Revised Statute 124.800 to 127.897, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx (Last visited October 24, 2011). The Washington assisted suicide law is codified as Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 70.245, available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245 (Last visited October 24, 2011). In a third state, Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors a potential defense to criminal prosecution, but which does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from civil and criminal liability. See e.g. Greg Jackson, Esq. & Matt Bowman, Esq., " Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability," April 2010.
[14] Oregon's assisted suicide law was enacted via Ballot Measure 16. Washington's law was enacted via Initiative 1000. Both an initiative and a referendum are a process of referring a political question to the general electorate. Voters are asked to answer yes or no to a written question. See e.g., http://canadaonline.about.com/od/elections/g/referendum.htm
[15] Patients Rights Council, " Attempts to Legalize Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide in the United States," 2011 ("Between January 1994 and March 2011, there were 122 legislative proposals in 25 states. All bills that are not currently pending were either defeated, tabled for the session, withdrawn by sponsors, or languished with no action taken").
[16] See ORS 127.805 §2.01, ORS 127.800 §1.01(12) and Oregon Annual Report, Table 1, as of January 7, 2011.
[17] See ORS 127.815 §3.01, ORS 127.820 §3.02, RCW 70.245.040 & RCW 70.245.040.
[18] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, " Elder abuse a growing problem," The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010.
[19] Government of Canada, "Elder Abuse, It's Time to Face the Reality," scroll down to: "What is Elder Abuse?") available at http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&cid=154#a
[20] Id. See also CBC News, " Abusers of elderly are often family: police," November 19, 2008 ("About 75 to 80 per cent of elder abuse involve a financial crime . . .").
[21] Id. See also CBC News, " Abusers of elderly are often family: police," November 19, 2008 ("About 75 to 80 per cent of elder abuse involve a financial crime . . .").
[22] See CBC News at note 21 ("The fact that the suspect in the abuse is often a family member makes it hard for victims to come forward and may lead them to tolerate quite a lot of abuse. 'They really don't want to talk about, or really acknowledge out loud that their son or daughter, grand-daughter, grandson, might actually do this to them, might treat them this way'. . .").
[23] Government of Canada at note 19.
[24] Will Johnston, MD, " How exactly are we going to detect the victiminization when we can't do it now," Euthanaisa Prevention Coalition BC blog, October 16, 2011.
[25] See Susan Donaldson James, " Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008; " Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions," KATU TV, July 30, 2008; and Ken Stevens, MD, Letter to Editor, "Oregon mistake costs lives," The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, September 2011, to view, scroll down to bottom of second page here: http://www.margaretdore.com/info/September_Letters.pdf
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] KATU TV at note 25.
[30] ABC News at note 33.
[31] See "Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Risk Factors," Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division, September 2010, page 6, ("Deaths relating to the death with Dignity Act (physician-assisted suicides) are not classified as suicides by Oregon law and therefore excluded from this report"), available at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/or_suicide_report_001.pdf See also Oregon Health Authority, News Release, "Rising suicide rate in Oregon reaches higher than national average," September 9, 2010, ("suicide rates have been increasing significantly since 2000") available at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/news/2010news/2010-0909a.pdf
[32] See 2010 Annual Report, Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, (stating that Oregon's assisted suicide law was "enacted in late 1997").
[33] Compare Dr. Madelyn Gould, "Suicide Contagion," Suicide Prevention and Intervention: Summary of a Workshop, 2001, available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10226&page=8 See also Kelly Egan, "The contagion effect in suicide," The Ottawa Citizen, October 20, 2011, available at http://www.canada.com/news/Kelly+Egan+contagion+effect+suicide/5583321/story.html
[34] See e.g., Report to the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, Submission from the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, available at http://www.suicideprevention.ca/lobbying-for-a-national-strategy/suicide-a-national-tragedy/

Council of Europe states that: "Euthanasia must always be prohibited."

2012-01-26T14:24:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a non-binding resolution concerning Advanced Directives, Living Wills, Power of Attorneys and Consent to Treatment under the title: Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients. This resolution did not specifically concern the issue of euthanasia, nonetheless Article 5 of the resolution states:

"Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited."

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

This statement follows a similar decision on January 20, 2011 by the European court of Human Rights which found that the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Even though this is a non-binding resolution, it does make it clear that euthanasia is an act that must always be prohibited.

Read the commentary about this resolution by the European Center for Law and Justice.

Convicted killer in British Columbia tried using "assisted suicide" defense

2012-01-25T17:24:00.000-05:00

It has taken several days to think through the issues surrounding the second-degee murder conviction of Thomas Elton in the stabbing death of his wife Brenda Turcan/Blondell. Elton was convicted last week in Surrey BC.

Elton claimed that Blondell's death was a suicide pact gone wrong, meaning that he completed the her suicide but he didn't die by suicide himself.

His defense was that this was an assisted suicide and not a homicide.

1. Elton is on parole for the stabbing death of a fellow prisoner who he murdered in 1975.
2. Blondell, who also used the name Turcan, was on parole for a 1987 murder that she committed in Burnaby BC.
3. Elton claimed that Blondell was living with terminal cancer and that his act was part of a murder-suicide.
4. Elton claimed that he found Blondell unresponsive so he finished her suicide by first strangling her, and then stabbing her, to make sure that she had died.
5. Elton claimed that he then gave the dog pills and he took pills himself, in order to commit suicide.
6. The autopsy showed that Blondell did not take any pills and that she died from strangulation.

A story written by Jennifer Saltman in the Vancouver Province actually gave credibility to Elton's claims.

There are many problems with Elton's story.
1. Even if Elton had a suicide pact, Blondell died from strangulation. Assisted suicide is defined as an act that one does to oneself with the assistance of another. Clearly this is not an assisted suicide.
2. When you do a google search concerning Thomas Elton, you come across another case in 1998 where Elton attempted to kill a man by stabbing. In that case, Elton also claimed that the attempted murder was a murder/suicide and at the trial in 1999, Elton was acquitted of murder. In other words, Elton has used this defense before. (It is likely that the court was unable to consider the fact that Elton had used this defense before).

Finally, if assisted suicide or euthanasia was legalized, then cases, such as this, will be harder to decide, especially if the person has hired an accomplished lawyer.

It appears that Elton has been given significant leniency considering the fact that he was convicted of second-degree murder and not first-degree murder.

Poll finds that people in France prefer improving palliative care over legalizing euthanasia.

2012-01-25T14:31:00.000-05:00

A poll published today in France by Génèthique.org found that 60% of the respondents would like to focus on the development of palliative care over the legalization of euthanasia.

The Poll stated:

According to a BVA poll, conducted in particular by the Chamber of Notaries of Paris and published January 24, 2012, French public opinion has shifted on the ethical and social issues related to surrogacy and euthanasia.

As for the "right" to euthanasia, 84% of respondents declare that they recognize a "right" to euthanasia for people with incurable, terminal, and the claimant. In a similar survey in 2009, they were a little more, 86%, share this view. Moreover, the opinion poll of 2011 Way of Opinion found that 60% of French people would like to focus on the development of palliative care over the legalization of euthanasia.

It is important to note that a similar poll in Canada found that 71% of the respondents thought that the government should focus on improving palliative care over the legalization of euthanasia and only 5% thought the government should legalize euthanasia and improve palliative care.

People state that they support the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide out of the fear of dying a bad death. This fear is often related to personal experience. Our polling has found that very few people strongly support the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide while the majority of people want to reduce their fears with improvements to end-of-life care.

The Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

2012-01-24T16:35:00.000-05:00

Brescia University College

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition co-sponsored a speaking engagement featuring Professor Margaret Somerville.
When: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm.
Where: Brescia University College - 1285 Western Rd. London, ON (Western University) the Mother St. James Memorial Building Auditorium.
Topic: The Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
Cost: This is a free event - Everyone is welcome.

Margaret Somerville

Professor Margaret Somerville holds professorships in both the Faculty of Law - where she holds the Samuel Gale Chair - and the Faculty of Medicine (McGill University - Montreal). She was the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Professor Somerville is a world-renowned speaker, consultant and researcher on many topics including euthanasia and assisted suicide. She has written about the role that scientific and medical research and technology play in the formation of societal values.

Somerville consulted for international organizations such as the Global Programme on Aids of the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and law reform commissions in Canada and Australia.

She was the key-note speaker at the First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

This is a Free Event - Everyone is welcome.

Don't legalize assisted suicide

2012-01-22T16:25:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, The Salt Lake Tribune published the following letter from Oregon doctor, Charles Bentz. The article was published under the title: Don't follow Oregon.

Don't Follow Oregon

I am a doctor in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I disagree with the implication in “Do Utahns have the right to choose how they die?” (Tribune, Jan. 8) that Oregon’s assisted-suicide law is a good thing.

A few years ago, a 76-year-old patient presented with a sore on his arm. I referred him to a cancer specialist for therapy. As he went through that therapy, he became depressed, which was documented in his chart.

During this time, he expressed to the cancer specialist a wish for assisted suicide.

Rather than making the effort to address his depression, or to contact me, his primary physician who knew him, she asked me to be the second opinion for his suicide.

I did not concur; addressing his depression would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription.

Unfortunately, two weeks later my depressed patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor.

In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help.

In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a prescription intended to kill him.

Don’t follow Oregon’s lead.

Charles J. Bentz, M.D. Clinical associate professor of medicine Oregon Health and Sciences University - Portland Oregon

Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana

2012-01-21T21:30:00.002-05:00

Bradley Williams

Yesterday, The Salt Lake Tribune published a letter by Bradley Williams, the coordinator of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. Williams explains why assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The letter was titled: Suicide in Montana. Williams stated:

I am the coordinator of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and for Living with Dignity. I disagree with Patty Henetz that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, or, as she wrote, to “allow doctors to legally write such prescriptions for the terminally ill, under certain circumstances” (“Do Utahns have the right to choose how they die?” Tribune, Jan. 8)

For the past five years, Montana has been targeted for legalization of assisted suicide by the Denver-based suicide promotion organization deceptively named Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society). In 2007, Compassion and Choices initiated litigation that resulted in the 2009 Baxter decision that gives doctors, and only doctors, a potential defense to criminal prosecution for causing or assisting a suicide.

Assisted suicide is not legalized by giving doctors or anyone else criminal or civil immunity.

In 2011, Compassion and Choices tried again, backing a bill, SB167, that would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana. The Legislature did not pass it.

Legal assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse. It has multiple other problems as we discuss on our website (http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/).

Bradley D. Williams
Hamilton, Montana

Kidney Transplant denied to girl with disability

2012-01-19T14:59:00.000-05:00

Dick Sobsey

Dick Sobsey, the past director of the JP Das Centre on Developmental and Learning Disabilities at the University of Alberta, has brought to my attention the discrimination case concerning Amelia, a young child with Wolf-Hirschorn syndrome, who has been denied a kidney transplant because of her disability.

It clearly appears that this is a case of discrimination, where Amelia is being denied equal access to healthcare, not because the kidney transplant would be less efficacious for Amelia, but because she has a significant disability and is perceived to be, less than equal.

Sobsey stated in his blog:

Kidney Transplant Denied- January 19, 2012 — dsobsey

The parents of a young girl with Wolf-Hirschorn syndrome claim that she was denied a kidney transplant solely on the basis of her intellectual disability at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The mother’s account of her interaction with the social worker and physician is very specific. There seems to be little room to conclude maybe there was some other reason for the denial. Medical Ethicist Art Kaplan’s poll goes right to the heart of this. While Kaplan concludes, “But those reasons, to be ethical, have to be linked to the chance of making the transplant succeed. Otherwise they are not reasons, they are only biases,” the poll on the page asks simply, “Do you think a mental disability is a valid reason to deny a transplant?” If you have an opinion consider responding to the poll.

Discrimination and negative eugenics are still a part of our world.

Of course, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 says that no Federal Funds of any kind shall be paid to an entity that discriminates on the basis of disability:

Sec. 504.(a) No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of Congress, and such regulations may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

and the Convention on The Rights of Persons with Disabilities says:
Article 25 – Health

States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

a. Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;

…maybe it is time we started taking these things seriously.

In 2006, an article published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases studied the outcomes for 25 individuals with multiple disabilities who had kidney transplants (American Journal of Kidney Diseases Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 518-527, March 2006). The group included many with genetic syndromes including some with severe and some with severe intellectual disabilities. 23 got kidneys from living donors and 2 got kidneys from cadavers.The success rate was 100%. to quote the authors: “Surprisingly, the graft survival rate in the handicapped in this series is superior to that of patients with normal intellectual capability.” In other words, those with intellectual disabilities actually fared better than those without.

In addition, another 2006 article published in Pediatric Transplantation, reported 3-year survival rate results from a different sample of kidney transplant recipients and concluded excellent outcomes for individuals with intellectual disabilities. These may not have had as severe disabilities as the previous study. Surprisingly, the sample included 6 cases from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The one-year and three-year survival rates for these individuals was 100%.

Martens MA, Jones L, Reiss, S. Organ transplantation, organ donation and mental retardation. Pediatric Transplantation 2006:10:658–664.

Kidney Transplantation in Pediatric Recipients With Mental Retardation: Clinical Results of a Multicenter Experience in JapanToshiyuki Ohta, MD, Osamu Motoyama, MD, Kota Takahashi, MD, Motoshi Hattori, MD,Seiichiro Shishido, MD, Naohiro Wada, MD, Yoshimitsu Gotoh, MD, Tosh. American Journal of Kidney Diseases Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 518-527, March 2006

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – Canadian Update – The battle is in the courts.

2012-01-19T12:24:00.009-05:00

By Alex Schadenberg,
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On April 21, 2010, Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, was resoundingly defeated in parliament by a vote of 228 to 59. Many Canadians wrote letters or signed post-cards to Members of Parliament urging them to vote against Bill C-384 and to maintain the protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The euthanasia lobby in Canada reacted to their massive defeat in parliament by turning their attention to the courts.

In February 2011, the Farewell Foundation, a group in British Columbia that exists to aid their members suicides, launched a case in the BC Court to challenge the constitutional validity of Canada’s assisted suicide act. The Farewell Foundation case was challenging a ruling by the BC Registrar of Companies who denied the Farewell Foundation corporate status. The law does not permit organizations that exist solely to break the law to given corporate status.

In early April 2011, the Farewell Foundation launched a second case in the BC Court that stated that the laws that protect Canadians from assisted suicide are unconstitutional. The Farewell Foundation stated that five of their members wished to die by assisted suicide and the law unconstitutionally infringed upon their “right to die” by assisted suicide.

BC Supreme Court Justice, Lynn Smith, was assigned to the Farewell Foundation case.

In late April 2011, the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) launched the Carter case to overturn the laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The BCCLA representing the Carter family, stated that the rights of Kay Carter were infringed upon because she had to go to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide. The BCCLA also stated that the Carter family broke the assisted suicide law, by arranging and bringing their mother, Kay, to die by assisted suicide in Switzerland.

The BCCLA, in Carter, did not limit their challenge to the assisted suicide statutes of the Criminal Code. The definitions used in the case includes a challenge to the laws that protect Canadians from euthanasia.

Justice Smith asked to have the Farewell Foundation case and the Carter case heard together. At a pre-trial hearing Justice Smith indicated that the Carter case would be heard but the case lacked urgency, since Kay Carter had already died in Switzerland and the Carter family had not been prosecuted for their part in their mother’s death.

In response to Justice Smith stating that the Carter case lacked urgency, on June 28, the BCCLA amended their notice of claim by adding Gloria Taylor, a woman who is living with ALS.

On August 3, Justice Smith accepted the amended notice of claim. Due to the health condition of Gloria Taylor, Smith decided to fast-track the Carter case. At the same time Smith questioned the relevancy of the Farewell Foundation case and a few weeks later she rejected the Farewell Foundation case, while encouraging the Farewell Foundation to intervene in the Carter case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC – BC received intervener standing in the Carter case. EPC asked to intervene and to have the right to introduce evidence in the court. The court granted EPC and EPC – BC intervener standing but denied them the right to call evidence.

In early November, the Leblanc case was filed by lawyer René Duval in Trois-Rivières Quebec. Duval seeks to have Canada’s assisted suicide law declared unconstitutional on behalf of his client, Ginette Leblanc, who lives with ALS. The Leblanc case is written in a tighter manner by limiting its challenge to the assisted suicide act and not challenging the law pertaining to euthanasia.

The Carter case was heard from November 14 to December 16 in a Vancouver courtroom. The intervention by EPC and EPC - BC was heard by Justice Smith on December 14.

The Carter case is difficult to define because the BCCLA, on behalf of the Carter family and Gloria Taylor, made it appear that they were seeking to legalize assisted suicide but in fact they were seeking a wider decision that would grant the plaintiffs euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Carter case also included within the Notice of Claim language that might become the framework for a law that allows the direct and intentional killing of people by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This framework in the Carter case does not restrict the acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide to physicians. Carter defines who carries out the acts as: a person acting “under the general supervision of a medical practitioner.” Family members or other care-givers may be able to act under the general supervision of a medical practitioner. Therefore a family member could cause the death under the language in the Carter case.

The Carter case does not restrict acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide to people who are terminally ill. Carter states that eligibility for death should be based on people who are “grievously and irremediably ill.” Carter does not define the terms grievously or irremediatebly but provides these examples: “cancer, chronic renal failure and/or cardiac failure, and degenerative neurological diseases such as Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis.” The definition does not exclude people with chronic disabilities and it is not limited to terminal conditions.

John Coppard

John Coppard, from Victoria British Columbia, became involved with opposing assisted suicide for similar reasons. He stated in a letter to the editor:

“As a person who is “grievously and irremediably ill” with Grade IV brain cancer, I would be affected should this case succeed. Two and a half years after being given a 20 percent chance of surviving five years, I am doing very well on medication approved by Health Canada only a year ago, within a week of my cancer coming back.

Had I been given the legal choice of assisted suicide when I first received my terrible prognosis, or when my cancer returned, when I felt hopeless, I don’t know what I would have done.

Now I’m doing very well, thanks to medical advancements that are coming faster than at any time in our history. Our anti-assisted suicide laws protected me and gave me a chance for a long and happy life, just as they were intended to do.”

In the state of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, assisted suicide is limited to people with a terminal prognosis of having six months to live. Jeanette Hall, who lives in Oregon, had a terminal prognosis and she wanted to die by assisted suicide. Instead, her physician convinced her to accept further treatment for her cancer. Eleven years later she stated in a letter to the editor:

“I wanted to do what our [assisted suicide] law allowed, and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me not to give up, and ultimately I decided to fight my disease… If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

Carter has now been argued before Justice Smith and we are waiting for her decision. Based on other decisions that Smith has made and her reputation as an activist judge, we are concerned about the potential of a bad decision by Smith.

If Smith decides, in some way, to legislate from the bench and to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, then the Attorney General of Canada will need to immediately appeal the decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. From their, the case will end-up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 27, 2012; the preliminary hearings are starting in Trois-Rivières Quebec on the Leblanc case. The Leblanc case may be more dangerous than the Carter case because Leblanc limits its challenge to assisted suicide and it does not attempt to impose a wide-open regime of assisted suicide on Canada. If the judge in Quebec decides to overturn our assisted suicide law, then the case will need to also be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Rene Duval, the lawyer representing Ginette Leblanc, hopes to have their case join the Carter case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The difficulty with battling issues within the court is:

* It is very hard to predict what a Judge will decide.
* It is very expensive to hire lawyers and argue before the courts.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC – BC co-intervened in the Carter case in British Columbia. EPC and Vivre dans la Dignité in Quebec are seeking to co-intervene in the Leblanc case in Quebec.

This is a very difficult undertaking and we will keep you up-to-date on the progress of these cases.

Meanwhile, you can make a difference by writing a hand-written letter to your Member of Parliament and the Hon Rob Nicholson, Attorney General, urging the Attorney General to immediately appeal any court decision that weakens our laws that protect us from euthanasia and assisted suicide. Link to the information about the letter writing campaign.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs donations towards the cost of the court interventions. Link to donate.http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

Dutch Psychiatrists euthanizing patients

2012-01-18T14:57:00.001-05:00

Wesley Smith

Yesterday, Wesley Smith wrote an interesting article on his blog about the fact that Dutch Psychiatrists are euthanizing their patients. You must be saying, no way, the issue of euthanasia is about "free choice" and psychiatric patients are often lacking in the ability to "freely choose".

If you read my article from yesterday titled: Euthanasia for any and no reason in the Netherlands it will not surprise you that mental pain and even dementia are becoming acceptable reasons for a lethal prescription.

What is interesting about the new euthanasia developments in the Netherlands is that the euthanasia lobby still states, with a straight face, that the "slippery slope" doesn't exist.

Wesley's article is titled: Dutch Psychiatrist To Get in on Euthanasia Action. I am reprinting it for you here.

On to the mentally ill! That is the message of a new article in the Dutch language tijdschrift voor psychiatrie 53 (2011) 8 (Journal of Psychiatry). I’ll skip the nonsense about great care being shown, and “hopeless” conditions–which the article doesn’t say is the same as untreatable, by the way, and skip right to the chase. From the Conclusion (English translation):

Assisted suicide, as a last resort in psychiatry, legally admissible since 2002, recently legitimized in practice. The midwife [of] Death is now appropriate for psychiatric reach patients, representing an emancipation of the psychiatric patient and psychiatry itself.

Emancipation! Both of the patient and the need for psychiatrists to try and save the lives of all suicidal patients!

And no psychiatrist had better refuse based on beliefs. Those refusing assisted suicide will have to explain themselves!

Categorical rejection of help-zelfdo thing in psychiatry represents a failure the autonomy of psychiatric patients and the scope of the legislation a duty to state reasons in the case of not honorring of requests for stervenshulp may lead [in the future] to the autonomy of the patient in more cases being honoured.

The name should be changed to “validated suicide,” once the imprimatur of a psychiatrist is put on the deed.

And so the last line of defense against the assisted suicides of mentally ill and other patients–a good mental health professional fighting for the life of despairing patients–slips away. Now, psychiatrists will help people make “rational” decisions to kill themselves in the Netherlands on an increasing scale.

Pushing Euthanasia as the Rule in Belgium

2012-01-18T13:50:00.001-05:00

Wesley Smith

Yesterday, Wesley Smith published this blog post entitled Pushing Euthanasia as the Rule. I thought his comments needed to be shared with you.

Pushing Euthanasia as the Rule
The Belgian medical establishment’s enthusiastic embrace of euthanasia has been breathtaking and appalling to behold. Now a study is out stating that a euthanasia counseling service is being underutilized by Belgian doctors. From "Implementation of a service for physicians’ consultation and information in euthanasia requests in Belgium," (Abstract only linked), published in Health Policy:

In the year following the enactment of the Belgian euthanasia law in September 2002, a special non-governmental service called the Life End Information Forum (LEIF) was created in Flanders by individuals (physicians, psychologist) with experience in palliative care together with the association Right to Die With Dignity.

Of course. Pro euthanasia types. But according to the study, not enough doctors have referred euthanasia questioning patients to the persuasion counseling service:

With over three quarters of those physicians who are potentially involved in end-of-life care and who work in the region covered by LEIF knowing of its existence, and almost 90% indicating they would consult a LEIF physician in future euthanasia requests, the implementation of LEIF can be considered to be relatively successful. The figure of 35% of those having received a euthanasia request since the founding LEIF and who had actually used the LEIF service, however, can be considered on the low side.

Oh no! What to do?

In order to encourage physicians to make use of the LEIF service for consultation, LEIF should continue promoting its services as widely as possible. Promoting LEIF in hospitals to specialists who are used to consulting with colleagues from within the hospital would also be helpful in order to guarantee the legal requirement of independence. Support from the government, e.g. in the form of reimbursement for the consultation, would formalize LEIF as a consultation service and would therefore also increase the use of the service.

What are we to make of this? Clearly, there are powerful forces in Belgium and elsewhere that hope one day euthanasia will become the rule in human dying rather than the exception. Indeed, I could see in a few decades-if it takes that long–that the expectation will be for terminally ill, frail elderly, and permanently seriously disabled to take the euthanasia way out.

Why might this be? I can think of many factors, but I’ll only suggest a few:

•An aggressively secular outlook that sees no intrinsic value in human life and sees eliminating the sufferer as a splendid way to prevent suffering. Lest you doubt me, recall the celebration of the joint euthanasia of an elderly couple who were not ill and the Belgian bioethicist calling it as a “normal way of dying.”

•Financial concerns mixed with a quality of life ethic that would direct medical resources away from caring for expensive and dependent patients to those who can “benefit” from treatment. What “treatment” is cheaper than killing? One can imagine expensive treatments being rationed and counseling to push euthanasia as the proper approach for patient, family, and society–accompanies by societal expectation.

•The hope to make utilitarian use of suicidal patients, such as in organ harvesting which is already happening in Belgium.

•A metastasizing nihilism that breeds the culture of death.
As I look back over my nearly 20 years of anti euthanasia advocacy and see how far matters have slipped–and imagine what it would be had we not continued to stand against the agenda–I keep hearkening back to the words of Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne who was appalled at the popular support for Robert Latimer after he murdered his daughter Tracy because she had cerebral palsy:

A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.

Alas, Coyne’s warning is turning into a prophesy.

Euthanasia for any and no reason in the Netherlands

2012-01-17T22:44:00.000-05:00

Netherlands

Radio Netherlands has reported that once again, euthanasia will be debated in late January in the Netherlands lower house. The euthanasia lobby is pushing for euthanasia to be prescribed for any and no reason.

The push to expand the availability of euthanasia has been going on for a long-time. In 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference where the then leader of Right to Die NL stated that their goal was to legalize euthanasia for people who are "tired of living."

Recently the euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands has also been pushing for mobile euthanasia teams to deliver death to people with disabilities. Does this mean that death is preferable to living with a disability?

Euthanasia was first accepted in the Netherlands for people who were terminally ill and suffering. Now euthanasia is done for people who are not terminally ill, who are experiencing depression, for newborns with disabilities, and possibly soon for any and no reason.

It should not surprise anyone that the number of euthanasia deaths continue to rise in the Netherlands with a 19% growth in euthanasia deaths in the past year alone.

Once death can be prescribed for one reason, there will soon be many more reasons to prescribe death. The only logical conclusion is to prescribe death for any and no reason.

The answer is to not accept euthanasia as the answer to any situation.

Assisted Suicide is not legal in Hawaii

2012-01-17T21:51:00.001-05:00

An article that published in the Honolulu Star Advertiser once again confirms that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii. Compassion & Choices, (C & C) known by Not Dead Yet researcher Stephen Drake as "Conflation and Con Jobs," claimed that an obscure law from 1909 that allows people in Hawaii to use drugs that have not been approved for use in Hawaii, as also allowing people in Hawaii die by suicide assistance.

Senator Josh Green

Deputy Attorney General Heidi M. Rian and Attorney General David Louie responded to a question by Senator Josh Green, the chair of the Senate Health Committee. The response to Senator Green stated:

"We do not believe that (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 453-1 provides authority for a physician to assist with dying. "A physician who provided such assistance could be charged under Hawaii's manslaughter statute."

In response to the contention that the 1909 law allowed doctors to prescribe suicide for their patients, the statement said:

there is nothing in the legislative history that "supports a conclusion that the term includes lethal dosages of medication."

This is not a new strategy for C & C.

Connecticut

C & C also claimed that Connecticut's law that prohibited assisted suicide, did not prohibit "Aid in Dying". This case was based on a Word Game and in June 2010, the Connecticut court clearly decided that "Conflation and Con Jobs" - C & C were trying to fool them and they threw the case out.

C & C claimed, in June 2010, that assisted suicide was legal in Idaho. They stated that their was no specific law that prohibited assisted suicide in Idaho, even though the common law was recognized as prohibiting assisted suicide and assisted suicide was considered to be part of the manslaughter provisions in Idaho. The position of C & C was not only rejected but in 2011, the Idaho legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to clarify that assisted suicide is a felony in Idaho.

For more information on the Hawaii case go to: Article 1, Article 2.

Massachusetts voters, need to reject Petition 11-12

2012-01-12T10:10:00.001-05:00

Stephen Mikochik wrote this letter that was published in The Washington Times yesterday. His letter concerns the language of the Massachusetts assisted suicide Initiative that will be on the Massachusetts ballot this November. The letter states:

Letter To The Editor: Massachusetts voters, reject Petition 11-12

If adopted this November, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts will legalize physician-assisted suicide for patients whose conditions are predicted to produce death within six months. Initiative Petition 11-12 claims to ensure that the patient’s decision to commit suicide is voluntary. That claim, however, is misleading.

The initiative petition requires that two persons witness the patient’s written request for a lethal prescription. One witness, however, can have a financial interest in the patient’s death. That person can be the only witness present when the lethal drug is taken. Thus, an interested heir could pressure the patient, and no one would know because no objective witness is required when the drug is taken. Also, the petition would require the death certificate fraudulently to list the patient’s underlying condition, rather than the lethal drug, as the cause of death.

Initiative Petition 11-12 uses terms like life-ending “medication” and death in a “humane and dignified manner.” But there is nothing medicinal about poison and nothing dignified about the prospects for the abuse the initiative petition would allow. It is a bad law that the voters of Massachusetts should reject decisively.

Stephen L. Mikochik
Professor emeritus
Temple Law School
Philadelphia

Assisted Suicide case in British Columbia - Update

2012-01-11T09:53:00.002-05:00

EPC intervened in the Carter case in BC

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, argued the points of our intervention in the Carter case in Vancouver before Justice Smith on December 14, 2011.

The Carter case, which is being promoted by the BC Civil Liberties Association, is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada through the court. The case started with the Carter family who were arguing that the law infringed on the rights of their mother, Kay Carter, who died by assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. The case later added Gloria Taylor, who is living with ALS.

EPC argued that prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide is necessary to protect all people. We argued that the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada, for the Rodriguez decision, are still valid today. We argued that in practice, the concept of choice or autonomy cannot be assured and do not protect people who are dependent on others and we argued that legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide, in any form, will lead to new paths for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable persons.

The Attorney General of Canada will be making its final submission to Justice Smith on January 13. We have no idea when Justice Smith will release her decision. We hope that she will make the correct decision by refusing to legislate from the bench and therefore not imposing euthanasia and assisted suicide upon Canada.

If Justice Smith refuses to legislate from the Bench and upholds the law, then the BC Civil Liberties Association, who represent the Carter and Taylor plaintiffs, will appeal the case to the BC Court of Appeal. If Justice Smith decides to legislate from the Bench, we will require the Attorney General of Canada to appeal the case to the BC Court of Appeal. In the end this case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You may consider writing a hand-written letter to the AG and to your Member of Parliament. You should ask your MP to urge the AG to do whatever possible to uphold the laws that protect us from euthanasia and assisted suicide. You need to keep your letter simple. Please use the following sample talking points:

As a Canadian, I ask that you do whatever possible to uphold our laws that protect me from Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

I am concerned that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide will lead to pressure being placed on people with disabilities. Some deaths may occur without request or consent, as has happened in other jurisdictions.

I am concerned that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide will lead to new paths for elder abuse which is already a serious social problem in Canada.

Dependent elderly people may die by euthanasia or assisted suicide because of pressure from abusive relationships that they are already experiencing.

Letters would be sent to: Attorney General of Canada

Your MP Hon. Rob Nicholson

House of Commons House of Commons

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca

Montana Assisted Suicide Seminar - January 28, 2012

2012-01-10T15:37:00.000-05:00

Join Us in Great Falls!

Saturday January 28th!

Seminar & Reception!

Come to learn and have a great time!

Date: Saturday, January 28, 2012

Time: Seminar, 1pm to 4pm; Reception, 4 pm to 5 pm.

Where: Hilton Garden Inn, 2520 14th St. SW, Great Falls, MT.

Cost: No charge, donations appreciated!*

RSVP: Let us know that you're coming! Please e-mail Bradley Williams, at: bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org. You can also call 406 531 0937 during business hours (9 am to 4:30 pm). We look forward to seeing you, your family and/or your friends!

MC: Rick Blevins, MD

Dr. Charles Bentz

Charles Bentz, MD. Dr. Bentz is a practicing physician in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. He is also President of Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation. He will speak on the "Oregon Experience."

Margaret Dore. Ms. Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide. She will speak on "Current Law and Why Assisted Suicide is Bad Public Policy"

Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle. Senator Hinkle is from Thompson Falls and represents SD 7. He will be speaking on "Lessons from the Last Legislative Session."

Montana State Senator Jim Shockley. Senator Shockley is from Victor and represents SD 45. He is an announced candidate for Attorney General of Montana. He will be speaking on the recent hearings before the Medical Examiner Board.

Bradley D. Williams. Mr. Williams is Coordinator for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity. He will be discussing the recent hearings before the Medical Examiner Board

One-sided assisted suicide report released in the UK

2012-01-05T22:49:00.003-05:00

Lord Falconer

The Commission on Assisted Dying (Commission) that was chaired by Lord Falconer, a long-time promoter of assisted suicide, released their 400 pages of "ink on paper" calling for the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK. The Commission was sponsored by the Dying in Dignity assisted suicide lobby group and jointly financed by author and pro-assisted suicide activist Terry Pratchett.

Dr Peter Saunders, the campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance stated:

"This investigation was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency and its report is seriously flawed. It is being spun as a comprehensive, objective and independent review into this complicated issue. It is anything but."

The report was similar to the recent one-sided Royal Society of Canada report that called for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. The Royal Society of Canada End of Life Decision Making committee, from its inception, was a stacked committee that sought promote a framework for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

It is interesting that much of the media referred to these reports as "independent expert reports" even though both reports are a desperate attempt by the suicide lobby to gain credibility for the idea of giving physicians the right to be involved with the direct death of their patients. At least Jocelyn Downie was able to hood-wink the Royal Society into paying for her euthanasia report.

I responded when the Royal Society of Canada committee was announced that they could save a lot of money by simply asking me to write the report, in fact, I accurately predicted the recommendations of the Royal Society report before it was released.

The Commission was known to be biased resulting in major groups throughout the UK refusing to present to the Commission, including the British Medical Association.

The Commission report suggested that assisted suicide be legalized in the UK in an "Oregon Model" whereby the person who dies by assisted suicide must be at least 18 years old, , must have a terminal condition that would lead to death within 12 months, must have the request approved by two physicians, and the person must be determined to be of sound mind, and to not be pressured by others.

The fact is that the Commission report would give doctors the right to assist the suicides of their patients in a looser system of "safeguards" that exists in the State of Oregon, and yet Oregon is far from tightly administered.

In Oregon, 57 of 59 assisted suicide deaths in 2010 were facilitated by Campassion & Choices, the assisted suicide lobby group that is equivalent to the Dying in Dignity group in the UK. A 2008 report by researcher Linda Ganzini showed that 26% of people who had requested assisted suicide were depressed and yet none of the people who were part of her study were offered a phychiatric assessment, that is required by law.

In otherwords, patients who are depressed and asking for assisted suicide in Oregon are not being protected by the, so called, safeguards, and yet the Commissions report suggests that this would not happen in the UK with their proposed looser set of safeguards.

Barbara Wagner

The case of Barbara Wagner in 2008 uncovered what occurs in a place where assisted suicide has become accepted. Wagner, who was dependent on the Oregon health care plan, was turned down for cancer treatment but offered assisted suicide. Assisted Suicide in Oregon is supposedly based on the "free choice" of the participants but Wagner was being steered to suicide by the state.

Julia Manning stated in the Daily Mail that her father-in-law was given six months to live and he lived six more years of quality life. She pointed out that the 12 months to live "safeguard" "is giving false certainty of the predictability of death."

Terry Pratchett told Sky News that he believes that the report that he jointly funded into assisted dying does not go far enough. I guess that was Pratchett's way of indicating that he did not influence the writers of the report, but why would he need to influence a Commission that was stacked with leaders from the suicide lobby.

George Pitcher

George Pitcher pointed out in the Daily Mail that some of the Commission members pointed out that their report represented "baby steps". Pitcher reports that Joyce Robbins stated:

'I think we can only go for terminal illness at the moment, so this doen't actually apply to people who are probably about to go into care homes. But, you know, baby steps.'

My only fear is that some people will actually take this report seriously. Some people may actually respect the amount of time it took to put that much "ink on paper."

Euthanasia: Another word for murder.

2012-01-05T16:57:00.002-05:00

An interesting article that was written by Harry Wolbert, was printed in the Winnipeg Sun yesterday. Wolbert, a disability leader from the Winnipeg Manitoba region, examines the issue of euthanasia under the lens of how legalizating euthanasia would effect people with disabilities. Wolbert examines the current euthanasia debate in Canada within the context of what is happening in the Netherlands. He also emphasizes the reality that people with disabilities have, throughout history, lived with negative stereotypes and actions, that at times resulted in death for people with disabilities. Great letter Harry.

Euthanasia: Another word for murder

Euthanasia is once again in the spotlight.

Harry Wolbert

The Carter case, now before the courts in B.C., seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. It’s a constitutional challenge which seeks to legalize these practices as medical treatment and to be regulated within provincial health-care regulations.

On April 21, 2010, Canada’s parliament soundly defeated Bill C-384, which sought to amend the Criminal Code, allowing the right to die with dignity. It was a bad piece of legislation which, had it passed, would have directly threatened the lives of persons with disabilities.
We won this battle. However, Canada’s right-to-die lobby aren’t giving up that easily.
In November, the Royal Society of Canada released its report on end-of-life decision-making. The report repeats the phrase “life is not worth living.”

In addition, it suggests dropping “terminal illness” as a prerequisite for death by euthanasia or assisted suicide. It says, “There are many individuals whose lives are no longer worth living to them who have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness.”

RIGHT TO KILL
When society defines a human life as “no longer worth living,” then it can justify a right to kill that individual. Advocates of euthanasia are using some of the same language and rhetoric in use when the former eugenics movement was around.

Persons with disabilities have reason to be concerned. It is a misconception we are somehow “suffering” and in need of state-sanctioned assistance to end our lives.

Language commonly used by the disabled community has been hijacked. Words such as “choice” and “autonomy” are being redefined by the advocates of euthanasia. It has been said all social engineering is preceded by some form of “verbal engineering, so we need to reclaim our language.

The Netherlands is often referred to as a nation where euthanasia laws have worked well. However, we’ve learned from recent reports that many euthanasia deaths there go unreported. We have also learned 20% of Dutch general practitioners were willing to euthanize a patient who was “tired of life.”

WHAT ABOUT CONSENT?

Recently, the Dutch Medical Association approved euthanasia for people with dementia, Alzheimer’s and loneliness. Whatever happened to euthanasia requiring consent or the person having capacity? The irony of history is during the Second World War, the Netherlands was the only occupied country whose doctors had refused, en masse, to participate in the German euthanasia program.

Euthanasia is a very emotional issue. It’s one of those issues for which there are no easy answers. Canada’s euthanasia lobby failed to legalize euthanasia through democratic process and are now looking for a sympathetic, activist judge.

I am opposed to any action or legislation that may serve to further devalue the lives of persons with disabilities. It’s this devaluation of our lives which has often been used to justify acts of violence against us even murder.

The last thing we need is for more negative stereotypes about persons living with disabilities. And while I’m opposed to the practice of euthanasia, I do believe Canadians need to have a dialogue around this important issue.

No assisted suicide bill has passed the scrutiny of a State legislature.

2012-01-04T22:22:00.002-05:00

Diane Coleman, the founding President of the Disability Rights group Not Dead Yet, was published today in Canada's National Post in response to an article by Tom Blackwell concerning the recent poll on assisted suicide. Coleman stated:

No Assisted Suicide bill has passed the scrutiny of a State legislature.

Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the United States. The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.

One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide — most people know that it could tip the scales if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.

Another factor is that the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only assistant. However, the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.

And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that safeguards can ensure that the process is voluntary. But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in ones home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.

All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our 50 states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.

Diane Coleman, president/CEO Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.

What happened in the Netherlands can happen next in Canada

2012-01-04T22:09:00.002-05:00

Dr. William Reichel, affiliated scholar, Center for Clinical Bioethics at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Timonium, Md., had a letter published in Canada's National Post today. I have reprinted his letter.

What happened in the Netherlands can happen next in Canada

I have studied assisted suicide in the Netherlands since 1988. At first there was no law against assisted suicide. When there was a law, doctors were supposed to obtain the patient's consent but they did not, often performing euthanasia when they thought the patient would benefit. The doctor was supposed to get a second opinion from a colleague but often did not. The doctor was supposed to report the assisted suicide to the government but often did not.

What happened to the Netherlands can happen next in Canada.

Are we better off dead than disabled?

2012-01-04T11:49:00.000-05:00

The perils of the social devaluation of people include legal assisted suicide and euthanasia

By Rhonda Wiebe

It is not uncommon to hear people without disabilities and people who have recently acquired a disability say they would rather be dead than disabled.

Although politically incorrect, embedded perceptions that life with disability is full of suffering and indignity promote the idea that it's a death sentence. Able-ist social conditioning equates disability with pain, frailty, incapacity, and poor quality of life. It views persons with disabilities as problems that need to be fixed.

The 'problem' of disability

I would argue the "problem" of disability lies more in external social, physical, attitudinal, and architectural barriers.

I am considered legally blind. If you hand me something in 12 point font, I can't read it. You might say I am disabled because I can't see. However, if you give me a document in large print, I no longer have a problem. An external change resolves a biological "shortcoming."

At times I use a wheelchair. I am "disabled" by the environment around me: stairs, curbs with no access cuts, and doors that don't open automatically. However, when changes are made externally, I become self-reliant.

Negative images devaluing persons with disabilities infiltrate literature, movies, news media, and television. We are portrayed, at best, as having lives no one wants, and at worst, as freaks or deviants. Rarely are we depicted as empowered people with much to contribute to the world around us.

Same rights

Unfortunately, many people who acquire a disability internalize able-ist perspectives. They see themselves as being of less value, rather than as people who have needs which, when accommodated, help them enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as every citizen.

Dignity and wellbeing are mistakenly equated with being able-bodied. Conversely, illness or disability is associated with lack of dignity. Dignity, a key component in actions before the courts that seek to legalize euthanasia, is often defined by the notion that something like incontinence indicates a lack of dignity because it is perceived as a loss of autonomy.

Although most people would not choose to be incontinent, toileting needs can be met through the assistance of another person or a disposable incontinence product. (Please note I'm not calling them diapers; infantilizing the people who use them only reduces their dignity.) Somehow needing help to go to the bathroom is considered to have a greater detrimental impact on dignity than relying on other supports.

Many people use eyeglasses. However wearing spectacles doesn't lessen one's dignity or even one's rightful place in the world. The need to don an invisible incontinence product, on the other hand, seems a good reason to encourage someone to end it all.

Permeating politics

Able-ist attitudes permeate our politics. Canada's current immigration policy restricts persons with disabilities from immigrating to our country. It could deny someone like renowned scientist Stephen Hawking an opportunity to immigrate to Canada.

I admire Hawking. He has not succumbed to the idea that because he has ALS he has nothing left to offer. If a man who has made such significant contributions can't "make the cut," what message does that send? It says we don't really belong because we're not able-bodied.

Medical practitioners are not immune from acquiring these negative perceptions.

Years ago I initiated a conversation with an endocrinologist about the possibility of pregnancy and how it would affect a woman with my disabilities. I wanted to have children, but also wanted to be responsible by getting fair and balanced information from an expert.

My doctor's response was something like, "If people like you stopped having children, we could eliminate this disease from the face of the earth within a few generations."

I don't know if he considered that eliminating "the disease" also meant eliminating people like me. For him, the problem was inside me, and following that logic, I was the undesirable component.

The unworthy are at risk

If we are tacitly acknowledged as unworthy, we are at risk. At times of fiscal restraint, we can experience discrimination when medical budgets are limited.

It's very difficult to access information about how health care resources are allocated, but there is much evidence to support the idea that they are determined by measuring our value using subjective criteria like "quality of life."

If medical practitioners don't have the direct experience of living with disability, and if they don't make extraordinary efforts to explore beyond the bio-medical models available in med student curricula, how can doctors ever have anything but an able-ist evaluation of someone's quality of life?

If our quality of life is viewed as being narrowed, we risk having our health options shrink. If our health options are taken away, or never presented in the first place, our very existence is threatened.

It is especially when we are coming to terms with new conditions, changing conditions, or physical and psychological pain that we need to be reminded that we matter, that we are worth something.

Our dignity is inherent

Our dignity is inherent. We have dignity because we are human. Our dignity is framed within the context of our sense of, contribution to, and interaction with our communities, not about what does or doesn't work in our bodies.

If Hawking can add value to our society, we all can. We are only limited by our able-ist imaginations.

If assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized, it could be devastating for persons with disabilities. Medical practitioners might never question the desire of someone who has acquired a disability to be euthanized, because they wouldn't consider the possibility that the requester is experiencing difficulty adjusting to a difficult change.

Realistically, acquiring a disability is about living with loss, which often requires profound adjustment and supports, but so does losing a child. Do we hand grieving parents a hypodermic of lethal medicine and say, "This must be unbearable; here's a way to end your suffering"?

Suicide prevention

Canadians seem enthusiastic about promoting suicide prevention, but is that only for able-bodied people? When we face the social message that it's better to be dead than disabled, the option of assisted suicide and euthanasia, rather than providing supports to help us live fully, puts our very lives at risk.

Rhonda Wiebe is a disability rights advocate from Winnipeg. She co-chairs the Ending of Life Ethics committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and serves on the Board of Directors of Not Dead Yet. She has lived with a disability since she was 13.

Not Dead Yet - Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People with Disabilities.

2012-01-04T11:12:00.000-05:00

Diane Coleman, the leader of the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet, published an excellent commentary concerning the Proposed guidelines for Organ Procurement in relation to Cardiac death.
The article titled: Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People With Disabilities, which I have reprinted below, looks at the process for policy development and explains how these issues directly effect her life and the lives of many people with disabilities. The new policies were developed without the input of the disability community and at least it appears that the Disability community will be considered within future and current policy development. Way to go Diane.

Please read the commentary from Not Dead Yet.

Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People with Disabilities.

Less than two months ago, I was introduced to a new policy arena about which I still have much to learn: the organ procurement and organ sharing system. In the U.S., the federal Department of Health and Human Services contracts with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to manage the nation’s organ transplant system.

Among other functions, OPTN/UNOS provide guidelines pertaining to organ procurement practices in hospitals. In March 2011, OPTN/UNOS proposed changes to the practices related to organ donation following cardiac death (“Proposal to Update and Clarify Language in the DCD Model Elements” ["DCD Proposal”]; apologies that the documents are pdf files). The proposed changes explicitly mentioned people with “upper spinal cord injury” and “musculoskeletal or pulmonary disease”, and comments were due June 10.

Since I have a lifelong neuromuscular disability and increasing respiratory issues over the last decade, I can’t help but view the proposal both professionally and personally. About a year ago, Stephen Drake mentioned that Belgian doctors were bragging about harvesting high quality organs from people like me and other people with disabilities. There are people close to me who need organ transplants, and I respect organ donation. But the Belgian story was a bit unnerving.

The UNOS listing of “Affected Groups” in the “At-a-Glance” summary of the DCD Proposal does not include organ donors or prospective organ donors, except to the extent that they are included as members of the “general public.” I’m not aware of any disability groups that were alerted to this proposal in time to submit comments. In particular, I’ve confirmed that the very active health care advocates at United Spinal were not aware of it, and I suspect this is likely true of other relevant disability groups.

The proposed changes were scheduled to be voted on by the OPTN/UNOS Board at its November meeting.

On November 8, NDY sent a letter to “request that the comment period be reopened for the Proposal to Update and Clarify Language in the DCD Model Elements in order to enable the development and submission of comments by organizations representing people with spinal cord injuries, brain injuries and neuromuscular disabilities.” Essentially, we argued “Nothing about us without us.”

Stephen Mikochik, a blind attorney and law professor at Temple University who chairs the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, also submitted a letter urging that the comment period be reopened. He did not mince words in describing the proposed changes as discriminatory and worse:

. . . [B]y identifying patients with upper spinal cord injuries as DCD candidates, requiring solicitation of their organs for transplant, necessarily entailing withdrawal of life-support and their deaths, the proposal singles out a class of persons, disabled under federal civil rights law, for adverse treatment. This constitutes discrimination.

Another goal of the proposed changes is “to maximize the number of donors and transplants by identifying the currently unrealized donor potential through the clarifying and updating of language.” To that end the changes eliminate the requirement that evaluation of patients’ candidacy for DCD occur only after the decision to remove life-support is made. The potential for undue influence this creates is obvious. Those suffering from upper spinal cord injuries often adjust to their conditions over time and, despite their impairment, can lead meaningful lives. Not surprisingly, they and their families are most vulnerable at the onset of the injury and most open to the suggestion of those required to identify “unrealized donor potential” that they can salvage some good through ending their lives and giving their organs to others.

. . . [T]here are virtually no safeguards at all to ensure that the donation decision is voluntary. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such safeguards were thought unnecessary because such patients were considered more valuable when dead.

Mikochik concluded that HHS would not be able to approve changes that would involve discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

I’m not aware of any other letters from the disability community, but am gratified to report that, in response to all of the letters it received, UNOS sent an email notifying me and others that it withdrew the proposed changes and plans to reissue them for public comment in the near future. The reissued proposal may incorporate some of the input already submitted, but the previous version can be viewed online, and interested groups can sign up to receive notification of future proposals issued for public comment. It appears to be time to add these issues to the disability agenda. – Diane Coleman

No right to be killed by others

2011-12-31T23:31:00.000-05:00

Dr Rene Leiva wrote an excellent letter in response to the article in the National Post yesterday. His letter was published in the National Post today. Please read:

No Right to be Killed by others.

Re: Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.

I am greatly perplexed when I hear euthanasia proponents talk about a "basic human right to die," when there is no such thing. We are all going to die anyway, so let's please be honest and call it what it is: The right to be killed by somebody else. I am deeply disturbed by people who overlook the failure of the euthanasia experiments in other countries. Why do they coldly dismiss all those hundreds of people who have been euthanized without their consent? Do they consider them collateral damage? Would they call for an absolute right to drive for everybody, even if they knew lots of innocent people would be killed by incompetent drivers? I don't think so.

Canada rightly forbade capital punishment, due to the fact that no system can guarantee that no one will be killed by mistake. We have the freedom to make choices, but those choices should not hinder the safety of others, especially our most vulnerable.

Rene Leiva, palliative care physician, Ottawa.

Time to rethink - rethink euthanasia.

2011-12-29T20:11:00.001-05:00

In his article [“Time to rethink euthanasia,” Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 29th ] Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing at the hands of her husband, Ian. In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.

Link to a recent Canadian study on the topic.

In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows “the national pattern.”

Donna Cohen

Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife:

“The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself.”

If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.

Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.

[Note: You may be interested in these articles: Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009, and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent,”]

Assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii

2011-12-24T23:12:00.003-05:00

The group Hawaii against assisted suicide circulated a press release on Wednesday December 21 from the Alliance Defense Fund stating that the Attorney General of Hawaii has confirmed that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii.

Compassion & Choices (C & C), formerly known as the Hemlock Society, has claimed that a law dating back to 1909 allowed assisted suicide in Hawaii. The law that they were referring to allowed doctors to prescribe treatments that are not yet approved to people who are "hopeless and beyond recovery." C & C claimed that this meant that doctors could prescribe a lethal dose to assist the suicide of their patients.

David Louie, the Attorney General for Hawaii has confirmed that the 1909 law does not allow assisted suicide.

Hawaii attorney Jim Hochberg confirmed that:

"the history of the law clearly indicates its intent to prohibit prosecution of someone whose untested techniques or materials may be able to save a patient when traditional medical practise could not."

Hochberg explained that:

"This law simply does not give doctors discretian to hasten the death of patients and that no one should believe the recent falsehoods that pro-death proponents have spread about Hawaii law."

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore, the leader of Choice is an Illusion and an attorney from Seattle Washington wrote an excellent legal analysis debunking the argument by (C & C) titled - Hawaii: Assisted Suicide in not already legal.

This is just another example of how (C & C) will spin the truth. Stephen Drake, the research analyst for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet refers to C & C as "Conflation and Con Jobs."

Read the opinion of the Attorney General here.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition expects that Compassion & Choices will encourage a physician to break the law in order to test their theory concerning the state of the Hawaii law or they will challenge the law in the court.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition makes oral arguments in assisted suicide case.

2011-12-13T11:02:00.002-05:00

EPC Media Release

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is an Intervener in the Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada case that seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

On December 14, the EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, will be presenting our legal arguments before the BC court.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher notes:

“Concerns about safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors will be central to the arguments advanced by EPC before the court, as will concerns about a harmful shift in our cultural ethic that will occur if assisted suicide is legalized.”

EPC – BC chair, Dr Will Johnston states:

“I see elder abuse in my practice, often perpetrated by family members and caregivers. A desire for money or an inheritance is typical. To make it worse, the victims protect the abusers. In one case, an older woman knew that her son was robbing her blind and lied to protect him.”

“Under current law, abusers take their victims to the bank and to the lawyer for a new will. With legal assisted suicide, the next stop would be the doctor’s office for a lethal prescription. How are we going to detect victimization when we can’t do it now?”

EPC executive director, Alex Schadenberg states:

“The issue was debated last year in parliament and consistent with earlier Senate Committee reports, parliament overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, by a vote of 228 to 59.

Link to an EPC article on the case.

Link to the EPC Talking Points.

For further information contact:
Will Johnston, MD, willjohnston@shaw.ca, (604) 220-2042
Alex Schadenberg, info@epcc.ca, (519) 851-1434
Hugh Scher, hughscher1@gmail.com, (416) 816-6115

Link to the online petition campaign to the Attorney General of Canada.

Make a donation or become a member of EPC.

Disability Rights Group Announces Opposition to Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative

2011-12-09T17:03:00.001-05:00

Not Dead Yet circulated information concerning yesterdays press conference by the Massachusetts group - Second Thoughts. Second Thoughts is composed primarily of people with disabilities who have organized to oppose the assisted suicide initiative in Massachusetts. Please read:

Group Announces Opposition to Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative
Boston, MA (PRWEB) December 09, 2011
On Thursday, December 8 at 12:30 p.m. at the Massachusetts State House, disability rights advocates, speaking as part of a new group they are calling Second Thoughts, publicly announced their opposition to a proposed assisted suicide 2012 ballot initiative in Massachusetts. Led by Boston disability activist John Kelly, with members from a number of the state’s centers for independent living run by people with disabilities, the group plans to add its voice to the growing and diverse opposition to the initiative.

Kelly spoke at a press conference attended by about 25 advocates. Karen Schneiderman, a woman with a disability who testified against an assisted suicide bill in 2010, spoke as a member of Second Thoughts as well. There were also remarks from other individuals who oppose legalization of assisted suicide, including former State Representative Mark Carron.

“Some people may ask why disabled people are speaking out about problems with a proposal that’s supposed to be about terminal illness,” said Kelly, “but when you look at the reasons Oregon reports for giving lethal prescriptions, it’s mainly about the social and emotional issues of becoming disabled, like depending on others and feeling like a burden.”

The top five reasons Oregon doctors report patients requesting suicide all relate to the perceived quality of life -- not the conditions of actual dying -- of the patient. In order, the reasons listed are the "loss of autonomy" (89.9%), “less able to engage in activities” (87.4%), “loss of dignity” (83.8%), “loss of control of bodily functions” (58.7%) and "feelings of being a burden” (38.3%) (Death With Dignity Act Annual Reports).

“There are so many problems with this initiative, from everyday inaccuracies in diagnosis and prognosis, to a lack of meaningful safeguards against abuse and pressure from self interested family,” said Paul Spooner, executive director of Metro West Center for Independent Living. “The reality is that once the lethal dose is in the house, an heir to the person’s estate could administer it without anyone’s knowledge.”

The Massachusetts disability advocates have reached out for support from national disability groups that have long opposed assisted suicide, especially Not Dead Yet and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Last weekend, on December 3, the Massachusetts Medical Society, which represents 23,000 of the state’s physicians, voted to sustain its long standing opposition to doctor assisted suicide. According to the Society’s press release, Lynda Young, M.D., president of the Society, said that “Physicians of our Society have clearly declared that physician-assisted suicide is inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and health care provider. At the same time we recognize the importance of patient dignity and the critical role that physicians have in end-of-life care.”

Suicide predator, William Melchert-Dinkel, is appealing his sentence

2011-12-08T20:25:00.004-05:00

Lee Greenberg wrote an extensive article that was published in the Ottawa Citizen on December 5 on the appeal by William Melchert-Dinkel, the Minnesota nurse who was convicted of counselling suicide, in the deaths of Brampton Ontario teen Nadia Kajouji and Mark Drybrough from the UK.

Kajouji was a first-year student at Carlton University in Ottawa. She became deeply depressed and established a suicide pact with Melchert-Dinkel after he contacted her on a suicide chat site under an assumed name.

What is particularly devastating is how Melchert-Dinkel used his relationship to gain some type of personal gratification in the suicide death of Kajouji and Drybrough. You may wish to read the earlier articles about this case that can be found by linking to Nadia Kajouji or Internet Suicide. Please read the following article:

-------------------------------------

Ex-nurse in Kajouji case files appeal

Man gave 'support, understanding,' documents claim

By Lee Greenberg, Ottawa Citizen December 5, 2011

The disgraced former Minnesota nurse convicted of assisted suicide in the death of Carleton student Nadia Kajouji was like a good, nurturing friend, someone who wanted to watch her die via webcam "in an act of togetherness and mutual support, to avoid (her) being alone." That is the message contained in an appeal filed in U.S. court on behalf of William Melchert-Dinkel, the 49-year-old man who admitted to trolling online chat rooms with the aim of trying to push vulnerable participants into suicide.

Nadia Kajouji

Mark Drybrough

In a lengthy filing, Melchert-Dinkel's lawyer says his client communicated with Kajouji, a severely depressed firstyear student who killed herself in 2008, and Briton Mark Drybrough, who hanged himself in 2005, "without disapproval, listening to them, supporting and understanding them and their messages, as well as their considered and independent decisions to kill themselves. He did not challenge or attempt to dissuade," lawyer Terry Watkins says in documents filed in court. "He respected the autonomy of their minds."

Watkins argues Melchert-Dinkel did not affect the course of Kajouji and Drybrough's life. Both came to the decision to kill themselves independently of the nurse, who was posing as a depressed female nurse under a variety of aliases, he says.

The chats, which include specific instructions on hanging and many subtle psychological exhortations, are protected by Melchert-Dinkel's constitutional right to free speech, the lawyer argues.

"The First Amendment doesn't allow a judgment to be made on the despicability of one's speech," Watkins writes, "only its - effect of getting another to do something which they otherwise might not do."

A judge in Minnesota decided otherwise last May when he found Melchert-Dinkel guilty of two counts of the state's assisted suicide law. The statute makes it a felony crime to "advise, encourage or assist" in the act.

Judge Thomas M. Neuville ruled free speech is restricted when it comes to encouraging suicide, because of the state's "compelling interest in preserving all human life."

He also ruled against Watkins' argument that both victims were already suicidal when they were contacted by Melchert-Dinkel. "The predisposition of a suicide victim actually makes the victim more vulnerable to encouragement or advice," the judge wrote in his decision.

Neuville sentenced the father of two to 320 days in jail, including two days each year for the next decade on the anniversary of each victim's death.

The case is so rare that the judge had no sentencing guidelines to draw from.

Kajouji, a Brampton, Ont., native, had slipped into a deep depression during her first year at Carleton after an unplanned pregnancy and subsequent miscarriage.

Melchert-Dinkel contacted the 19-year-old girl in early March 2008 in response to a posting she made on a suicide website.

Over the course of three separate chats, the two formed a suicide pact.

"Would die today if we could but I will wait and see how it goes for you," Melchert-Dinkel, posing as "Cami," says at one point.

"We are together in this," Kajouji tells him.

"Yes, I promise," he replies. "Monday will be my day."

A prominent psychiatrist who reviewed the transcripts for the Citizen said the conversations likely emboldened Kajouji and "sped up" her decision to end her life.

"What 'Cami' is doing here, slowly over the course of the conversation, is making suicide sound acceptable, natural, OK to do," said Dr. Marshall Korenblum, psychiatrist-in-chief at Toronto's Hincks-Dellcrest Centre.

However, Melchert-Dinkel's constant urgings to Kajouji over the method of her death - he prefers hanging, preferably while he watches on a webcam - go unheeded. Kajouji entered the conversation with a plan to jump off a bridge into the Rideau River while wearing skates, to make it look like an accident. On March 10, 2008, she executed that plan.

That ultimately factored into the decision by Ottawa police not to charge Melchert-Dinkel under Canada's assisted suicide law.

Uday Jaswal, a staff sergeant with the force and lead investigator on the case, told Kajouji's mother "given the totality of the evidence we had seen in terms of her own pursuit, in terms of going to a variety of sites, looking at suicide methods, we couldn't establish any sort of cause and effect between that conversation (with Melchert-Dinkel) and her suicide."

Melchert-Dinkel, who once checked himself into a hospitable complaining of an "addiction" to suicide chat rooms, has compared his perverse obsession to hunting, telling U.S. investigators he enjoyed "the thrill of the chase."

The native of Faribault, Minnesota, is free pending the appeal.

A court date for the appeal has not yet been scheduled.

Assisted-suicide panel failed to present balanced arguments

2011-12-08T15:28:00.002-05:00

Margaret Somerville wrote an article about the Royal Society of Canada one-sided euthanasia lobby report that was published in the Montreal Gazette today. The Royal Society published a report that not only advocated that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada, they suggested that if the federal government does not change the law, that the provincial prosecutors should simply turn a blind-eye the law and allow a state of lawlessness to occur. Somerville makes some excellent points. Please read:

Assisted-suicide panel failed to present balanced arguments

Margaret Somerville

Responding to the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel Report on End-of-Life Decision Making, which recommended the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, a Gazette editorial called for "a national debate on life-anddeath issues" (The Gazette's View, Nov. 24). In deciding where we stand on this issue, it's important for Canadians to understand the weaknesses of the report.

It is not "a careful, balanced review of various pros and cons of decriminalization of physician-assisted death from well-reasoned ethical and legal standpoints" - which is what was required in the panel's mandate. It's an unabashed pro-euthanasia manifesto.

That's not surprising. Many of the report's authors are well-known euthanasia advocates, as are the people whom the panel consulted.

The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are almost completely absent. Moreover, issues are considered almost entirely at the individual level. There is no in-depth discussion of the impact of legalizing euthanasia at the institutional level (in particular, the impact on health-care institutions and professions, and on the law) or at the societal level (in particular, on important shared values, such as respect for life). In fact, the value of respect for life is not discussed - an extraordinary omission.

The reporting on practices in jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide is seriously deficient, and selective. The report's coverage of abuses, problems or controversies is minimal.

For example, the report indicates that there has been one case of the use of euthanasia on disabled babies in the Netherlands. This is probably correct in the short time since the criteria for allowing such euthanasia was formally accepted by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics in 2005. But an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documents 22 cases of babies with spina bifida being euthanized in the Netherlands prior to that; this is not mentioned in the report. Likewise, a survey of Belgian physicians who had carried out euthanasia that found that 32 per cent of those physicians had euthanized patients without their request or consent, is never mentioned.

The authors make an unjustified assumption that individual autonomy, through "informed choice," is always the prevailing value, and they construct their case from there. They do not consider that for many people some other value might prevail - for example, respect for human life that requires that we don't kill each other, except when to save life.

The essential difference between the pro-and antieuthanasia positions is that the former gives priority to individual autonomy over respect for life, and the latter does the opposite. And respect for life goes beyond maintaining the value of respect for each individual human life, important as that is, to upholding respect for human life in general. Although the authors rely heavily on implementing values articulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as expressing our shared values, they overlook that respect for life is a Charter value.

The report emphasizes the burden and health-care costs of an aging population, and gives the impression that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will help to resolve this "problem." The authors note that euthanizing people "in advanced stages of dementia" will be an issue to be addressed in the future, and they don't reject the possibility that this might be acceptable. The report doesn't mention the results of a survey done in 2010 by Environics. The poll asked more than 2,000 Canadians what the government's priority should be: legalizing euthanasia, improving end-of-life care, or both. Seventy-one per cent of respondents said improving end-of-life care, 19 per cent said legalizing euthanasia, and five per cent said both.

Other recent Environics polls found that:
* 78 per cent are concerned that elderly, sick and disabled persons would be euthanized without consent.
* 63 per cent are concerned that elderly persons could be pressured to accept euthanasia in order to reduce health-care costs.

The usual "confusions" used to promote the case for euthanasia are all present in the report. The opposite arguments are not presented.

These criticisms are far from comprehensive. Many more could be articulated. Fortunately, there is a wealth of grounds on which this report can be easily dismissed.

Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.

Improving palliative care in Canada

2011-12-07T14:19:00.001-05:00

Improving Palliative Care in Canada

Palliative Care

Two recently released reports emphasize the need for a continued spotlight on palliative care
By Derek Miedema, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family

Canada

Two recently released reports pay attention to the need for palliative care in Canada. The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released Achieving Quality Palliative Care in Canada this week. The paper tells the story of palliative care in Canada, through the voices of palliative care heavyweights, Senator Sharon Carstairs (retired) and Dr. Balfour Mount, a Montreal-area oncologist. In a ten-page, easy-to-read format, the report highlights the five Ws of palliative care, stressing that this specialty is in dire need of attention because we have an ageing population. If current levels of palliative care remain the same, we are going to experience decreased access, simply because more people need it.

Similarly, on November 17, 2011, the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate care released a 200-page report. Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians examines three aspects of care: Palliative care, suicide prevention, and the prevention of elder abuse. With respect to palliative care, the report thoroughly examines the current situation in our country and makes recommendations for future developments in expertise and delivery. Most importantly, the report states that “palliative care is not only the best model for caring for vulnerable and dying Canadians; it also embodies truths that could be transformative for our whole health care culture.” [1] In other words, current palliative care practice should be adapted to animate disciplines across the entire medical system for the benefit of vulnerable Canadians across the country.

This was an all-party committee and they traveled the country conducting hearings and listening to the stories of Canadians with regards to palliative care, suicide prevention and elder abuse. While the committee report is not binding, it offers a thorough understanding of these issues.

How can palliative care transform our health care system?

The report lays out several ways that improved palliative care can change the medical system for the better. In place of medical disciplines currently separated from one another as though in silos, integrated care through all stages of a disease trajectory could benefit all patients with a long-term illness in the following ways:

Integrated care

Palliative care can be delivered by the same people from home to hospice to hospital. In this way a person’s caregivers can remain constant to ensure continuous care through all its stages.

How could this reality be translated to the entire healthcare system? Palliative care offers a model through the fact that it is “person-centred, family-focused and community based”. [2] The report states that:

Palliative care delivery could be coordinated to the needs of the client in a much more seamless fashion, with for example the home care team introducing palliative principles from the very beginning of the care relationship… Should a person not be able to live at home until they die, palliative care in a LTC facility, or residential hospice is needed. This could be seamlessly arranged by the client’s integrated continuing care coordinator. Palliative care becomes a gradual and normal transition within the continual care process.” [3]

Such integrated care would mean that a person could have the same palliative caregivers from the moment of diagnosis to the moment of death, greatly reducing their stress of being unknown to successively new caregivers.

Home care

Home care services are a vital part of health care services in Canada, especially in the context of an aging society. Supports for caregivers, such as a hospice volunteer who visits for a few hours a week, can be vital to maintaining their health. If caregivers break down under the stress of caring for their loved one, then they and the government will need to shoulder the cost of a long-term care home. Providing home care services for a few hours each day is much cheaper than paying for a bed in a long-term care facility.

The report notes that “a palliative care bed in a hospital is estimated to cost $600-800 dollars per day compared to $200 a day to have such a bed at home or $300 a day to maintain a bed at a community based hospice.” [4] If the expansion of palliative care services takes dying patients out of acute care wards, this could result in savings.

What needs to improve?

The report makes clear that there is still much work to be done to improve palliative care delivery in Canada. The recommendations below must be considered in the context of scarce government resources.

Expansion of services

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that only between 16 and 30 per cent of Canadians have access to quality palliative care. [5] Government investment is paramount if the excellent palliative care currently provided in local pockets is to be made available to everyone across the country, no matter where they live. In particular, the report states, “Canada needs to develop its capacity for residential hospices. Provinces need to adequately fund the operating costs of these facilities. Hospices across the country spent enormous amounts of time and energy struggling to raise the funds to stay open. This time and energy could be better utilized in care giving, if governments would supply adequate funding.” [6]

Pain management

Too many people in Canada are dying painful deaths. This is partly because palliative care is not equally accessible throughout the country, neither through direct care nor through referral. More importantly, pain control is a struggle because we don’t teach it well in our medical schools. From the report: “the mean number of hours designated for pain teaching over the entire academic training program (of pre-licensure health science and veterinarian training) was 15 for dentistry, 16 for medicine, 31 for nursing, 28 for occupational therapy, 13 for pharmacy, 41 for physical therapy and 87 for veterinarians.” [7]
A veterinarian receives five times the number of hours of pain teaching as a medical doctor. Clearly, such education must be expanded so that even general practitioners across the country would know enough to keep their patients comfortable until they can refer to a pain control specialist.

To this end, the Committee urges health care practitioners “to treat pain as the ‘fifth vital sign’, and to regard pain management as central to their vocation.” [8]

Supporting caregivers

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that the work of caregivers in Canada could be valued at $25 billion in 2009, were it paid labour. [9]

Caregivers face the stress of everyday life combined with the stress of caring for a loved one as they deteriorate. The report argues that “as the population ages and as more people require care, we must look at ways to support and sustain the precious resource of family caregivers; giving them the tools they need to carry out their vital role, while maintaining their health and equilibrium. If we don’t we risk the situation where we will have to treat two severely ill patients rather than one.” [10]

One way that government helps caregivers is through Compassionate Care Leave through Employment Insurance. With respect to Compassionate Care Leave, the committee recommends that “the federal government expand the provisions of the E.I. based compassionate care benefit to a minimum of 26 weeks coverage” and makes the benefit flexible, “allowing caregivers leave for episodic caregiving needs.” [11]

Government itself can never take sole responsibility for this aspect of caregiver support. Yet as the report recommends, government needs to partner with local communities to fund local hospice services. This would allow local hospice organizations to lessen, but not do away with their reliance on fundraising and therefore dedicate more time to providing care to their community. In this way, more people living with illness can have palliative care delivered in their home. And, if the need arose to leave home for full time care, the person could still remain in their local community.

We must work to recognize palliative care as a necessary part of our healthcare system and this report helps identify this. Then we can work to ensure people receive the dignified, quality care they need, throughout life and especially before death.

Download the full report here.
Endnotes

[1] Albrecht, H., Comartin, J., Valeriote, F., Block, K., Scarpeleggia, F., et al. (2011, November 17). Not to be forgotten: Care of vulnerable Canadians. p. 23. Retrieved November 24, 2011 from http://pcpcc-cpspsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ReportEN.pdf
[2] Ibid., p. 23.
[3] Ibid., p. 26.
[4] Ibid., p. 28.
[5] Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2007). Health care use at the end of life in Western Canada. Retrieved December 5, 2011 from http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/end_of_life_report_aug07_e.pdf (The committee notes that 16 per cent likely represents access on average across the country, with 30 per cent availability only in metropolitan areas.
[6] Ibid., p. 27.
[7] Watt-Watson, J., McGillion, M. et al. (2009). A survey of pre-licensure pain curricula in health science faculties in Canadian universities. Pain Research and Management. Vol. 14, No. 6), pp. 439-444. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from http://www.pulsus.com/journals/abstract.jsp?jnlKy=7&atlKy=9192&isuKy=888&isArt=t&HCtype=Consumer
[8] Albrecht, H. et al., p.47.
[9] Canadian Cancer Society. Success stories. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://convio.cancer.ca/site/PageServer?pagename=GEN_CAN_fight_success_stories
[10]. Albrecht, H., et al., p. 61.
[11] Ibid., p. 64.

Massachusetts Medical Association overwhelmingly opposes assisted suicide.

2011-12-03T21:43:00.000-05:00

Great News.

The Massachusetts Medical Association overwhelmingly voted to re-affirm its position against assisted suicide at there recent meeting. This is a significant decision considering the fact that the suicide lobby has collected signatures to have the issue of assisted suicide placed on the November 2012 ballot.

A media release from the Massachusetts Medical Association today stated:

The Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide association of physicians with more than 23,000 members, today voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician-assisted suicide, with its House of Delegates voting by a wide margin to maintain a policy the Society has had in effect since 1996.

Opposition to physician-assisted suicide was part of a larger policy statement that includes recognition of patient dignity at the end of life and the physician’s role in caring for terminally-ill patients. The policy was approved by more than 75 percent of the Society’s delegates.

Lynda Young, M.D., president of the Society, said that “Physicians of our Society have clearly declared that physician-assisted suicide is inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and health care provider. At the same time we recognize the importance of patient dignity and the critical role that physicians have in end-of-life care.”

Dr. Young said the policy goes beyond a single statement of opposition to physician-assisted suicide to include “support for patient dignity and the alleviation of pain and suffering at the end of life.” Additionally, it includes the Society’s commitment to “provide physicians treating terminally-ill patients with the ethical, medical, social, and legal education, training, and resources to enable them to contribute to the comfort and dignity of the patient and the patient’s family.”

The policy was one of several reaffirmed and adopted at the Society’s 2011 Interim Meeting, which brings hundreds of physicians from across the state to examine and consider specific resolutions on public health policy, health care delivery, and organizational administration by the Society’s House of Delegates, its policy-making body. Resolutions adopted by the delegates become policies of the organization.

The Massachusetts Medical Association, which is the medical society in the United States, has made a very wise decision. Doctors should be healers and when healing is not possible, doctors should alleviate pain and suffering, but doctors should not be given the right to cause the death of their patients.

I would like to congratulate John Kelly from the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet, who worked hard to produce a good hand-out and to arrange transportation so that could speak with the doctors as they attended the meeting.

UN DAY OF CELEBRATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES MARRED BY CONFLICT

2011-12-01T14:42:00.003-05:00

UN DAY OF CELEBRATION FOR
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES MARRED BY CONFLICT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - December 1, 2011

As the United Nations celebrates the International Day of People with Disabilities, on December 3, Canadians with disabilities find themselves at the brink of an attack on their fundamental human rights and collective equality, says Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate Hugh Scher.

In British Columbia, and Quebec, Courts are being asked to remove the prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia, a move that would threaten the lives of people with disabilities in Canada.

As former Chair of the Council of Canadians Human Rights Committee, Scher states:

“These court cases represent a fundamental threat to the lives, security and equality of people with disabilities across Canada, who may be unwilling victims of new death practices in Canada if the Courts defy the express will of Parliament, that overwhelmingly defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide across party lines last year.”

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director Alex Schadenberg states:

“The language of the Carter case allows family members to be involved with the death. The Canadian government recognizes elder abuse as a crime that is done by family, friends and care-givers or other person in a situation of power or trust.”

Canadian war veteran and disability rights advocate John Coppard states:

"If the law had allowed it several years ago, I may have requested assistance to suicide. That would have been the greatest mistake of my life and one that could not have been corrected."

As people with disabilities celebrate accomplishments of greater inclusion, accessibility and integration, there remains much work to do in improving access to society’s most basic institutions and enhancing health care practices, including accessibility to palliative care. Disability rights advocate Rhonda Wiebe, who co-chairs the Ending of Life Ethics Committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

“A discriminatory attitude that suggests that our lives are less than equal represents an affront to our most basic human rights”

For more information please contact:

Alex Schadenberg - 519-439-3348

Hugh Scher - 416-816-6115

John Coppard - 250-508-3446

Rhonda Wiebe - 204-779-4493

Rasouli case may be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada

2011-11-30T21:53:00.001-05:00

Rasouli Family

The Globe and Mail has been featuring articles on end-of-life care and decisions in Canada. An article, written by Lisa Priest on November 29, focused on the Rasouli case, a case which concerned who has the right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The doctors, in this case, are argueing that they have the unilateral right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and the family was arguing and the courts agreed, that the doctors require consent before they can withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition intervened in the Rasouli case at the Ontario Court of Appeal. We argued that doctors are required to obtain consent before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, and when a disagreement occurs between the family and the doctors, both parties have the right to have their case brought before the Consent and Capacity board. Link to an article on the case.

The article weighs towards favouring the position of the doctors in the way it says that Mr. Rasouli is utterly unaware, which his wife, a doctor, firmly disputes. The article also denies that this is an issue of consent to treatment when in fact this issue is clearly about who has the right to decide.

The article in the Globe and Mail was published yesterday under the title: Supreme Court asked to hear end-of-life case. The article stated:

Supreme Court asked to hear end-of-life case

For 13 months, Hassan Rasouli has been in a critical care unit at a Toronto hospital, where machines do all the things his body cannot: breathe, feed and hydrate him.

The 60-year-old is in a permanent vegetative state, utterly unaware he is in the middle of a divisive debate that could reshape the way decisions are made in Canadian hospitals on when to remove patients from life support.

Two doctors at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre are now asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their case; they see no medical purpose in keeping Mr. Rasouli on life support and propose shifting him to palliative care – but his family disagrees.

Although the country’s highest court has yet to decide whether it will hear the case, it is being watched by physicians, lawyers and health-care leaders as this ethical dilemma is expected to arise frequently as the population ages. If the court declines to hear the appeal, there will be no national guidance when families fight with physicians in hospitals and courtrooms over end-of-life issues.

Mark Handelman, a lawyer for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, an intervenor in the appeal. “As a country, we need to have these debates. But how are we going to do that when nobody wants to talk about it?”

At issue is whether extraordinary medical interventions save lives or merely prolong the dying process. Mr. Rasouli’s wife, Parichehr Salasel, believes it’s the former, saying her husband’s health has improved. She says he can hold up fingers and stick out his tongue on demand, and she has even posted photographs of him doing so on a Facebook page.

“When I ask him, ‘Stick out your tongue,’ he does,” she said in a telephone interview. “He’s better. Every day, he gets better.”

Mr. Rasouli finds himself in this predicament after undergoing surgery to remove a benign brain tumour. He developed a post-operative complication – bacterial meningitis – causing severe and diffuse brain damage, and since Oct. 16, 2010 has been on a mechanical ventilator. He receives nutrition and hydration through a tube inserted in his stomach. Doctors say he will never regain consciousness.

In late June, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling: In cases where death is imminent and doctors propose to withdraw life support and replace it with palliative care, that care becomes part of a treatment package to which consent is required from a patient or substitute decision maker.

What Sunnybrook doctors Brian Cuthbertson and Gordon Rubenfeld are asking the Supreme Court of Canada, should it decide to hear the case, is to confirm that it is a doctor’s decision whether to offer treatment or continue to offer it, based on an incapable patient’s best interests. They do not see it as an issue of informed consent.

Each side seems equally wrenching: While some may not believe doctors should be able to make unilateral decisions, others argue it makes no sense for patients to order medical treatments of no benefit.

In an affidavit supporting the leave to appeal, critical care physician Laura Hawryluck, an expert on end-of-life issues, wrote that allowing families to demand treatments that are not the standard of medical care will “serve only to ultimately erode medical professionalism and worsen the quality of ethical decision making with individual patients across Canada.” In addition, it will “increasingly limit our ability to respond to those in need by exhausting our finite health-care resources.”

Lawyer Harry Underwood, who represents the critical-care physicians, Dr. Cuthbertson and Dr. Rubenfeld, declined comment.

Gary Hodder, lawyer for the Rasouli family, described the issue as a “very respectful difference of opinion,” stressing that the doctors involved are “absolutely top-flight physicians.”

As for Ms. Salasel, she volunteers at Sunnybrook, where for several hours every Friday she can be seen in the radiology department, guiding patients to their X-rays, most of whom are not aware of the extraordinary legal battle she faces.

Her joys, she says, are simple. “I’m really happy,” Ms. Salasel said, “because he is still alive.”

The Cost of Taking a Life

2011-11-30T20:28:00.000-05:00

I was going through my emails and found this excellent letter to the editor by Winnipeg citizen Anna Desilets. This letter was printed in the Winnipeg Free on November 19, 2011 as a Letter of the day.

The letter stated:
The cost of taking a life

Re: Ottawa begged to decriminalize euthanasia, (Nov. 16). Those seeking the "right" to die are in fact seeking a so-called right to be killed at a time of their own choosing.

The argument used is a familiar one: "It's my body and I can do with it what I want." Yet by the time a person wishes to die, they are unable to take their own lives and must oblige others to kill them. Their dying thus becomes not a mere personal question, but one for the society, which must supply both the killer and the means.

How much must a person, be it a doctor or other, have to harden him or herself to take another's life? What does this killing do to the killer? At a time of increasing older and ill populations and decreasing health-care dollars, how long will it take for the ill to feel the subtle message that their living is a burden to be disposed of?

I am a volunteer at a long-term health-care facility and am in awe at the courage of people living with long-term illnesses. They deserve our help to live well in spite of illness. They deserve our compassionate care, our love, our palliative care. Killing negates all positive thinking and acting. We would, as a society, be well-advised to mark the cautionary words of John Updike: "Death, once invited in, leaves its muddy boot prints everywhere."

International Day of Persons with Disabilities marked by conflicting messages

2011-11-30T10:19:00.000-05:00

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Beaumont, Alberta, November 30^th 2011

Mark Pickup

The United Nation’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities will be observed globally on December 3^rd 2011. Canadian advocate for disability inclusion, Mark Davis Pickup applauds UN initiatives to give people with disabilities a voice in their communities and countries as well as inclusion and afforded full equality rights. Pickup observed that although

Canada

has made strides in areas of accessibility, citizens with disabilities are getting mixed messages. He stated:

“This past October the House of Commons gave its unanimous support to a National Suicide Prevention Strategy and now in November the British Columbia Supreme Court is considering a challenge (Carter case) to whether Canada’s law against assisted suicide should be overturned for the terminally and chronically ill and disabled.”

Pickup is chronically ill with aggressive multiple sclerosis (MS) and is electric wheelchair dependent. He continued:

“Let’s understand the message people like me will hear if the BC court rules in favour of the assisted suicide lobby. The healthy population should receive suicide prevention when suicidal. The old, sick and disabled get help committing suicide.”

Mark Pickup supports the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s intervener standing in the Carter case to protect people with disabilities, the chronically ill and elders. Their efforts to preserve

Canada

’s laws that protect people from euthanasia and assisted suicide must be supported. Pickup believes that laws and public policy must promote life with dignity for people with disabilities through supports for Canadians with disabilities to reach their full potential as individuals and citizens. Ensuring access to education, transportation, appropriate housing, recreational opportunities and other forms of reasonable accommodation can help full inclusion in society.

Contact:

Mark Davis Pickup

4417-51 Street,

Beaumont, AB

Tel: (780) 929-9230

Canadian Assisted Suicide case sparks dueling letters on Disability

2011-11-29T19:05:00.001-05:00

Diane Coleman, the founder of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, has written an excellent blog article concerning attitudes and articles about people with disabilities in relation to the Carter case. The article that was published today on the Not Dead Yet blog is titled: Canadian Assisted Suicide Case Sparks Dueling Letters on Disability. The article starts by explaining what the Carter case intends to do. Diane quotes an article that was partly written by myself she writes:

Diane Coleman

The public debate is well underway. On November 13, the Calgary Herald published an op ed by three opponents of legalization entitled “Why we should be afraid of assisted suicide.” The authors describe the case as follows:

Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada brings a constitutional challenge to Canada's laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia. The case also seeks to legalize these practices as a medical treatment. Last year, a bill in Parliament seeking a similar result was overwhelmingly defeated…. The vote was 228 to 59.

Carter seeks to allow a medical practitioner or a person "acting under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" to assist a patient's suicide. … In the context of traditional medical treatment, "a person acting under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" would include a family member.

As the authors point out, eligibility would not be limited to people whose condition is terminal:

In Carter, the amended notice of civil claim argues that laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional for patients who are "grievously and irremediably ill." The term is not defined. The amended notice of civil claim does, however, give these examples of qualifying diseases/conditions: "cancer, chronic renal failure and/or cardiac failure, and degenerative neurological diseases such as Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis." The phrase "grievously and irremediably ill" would also appear to apply to chronic conditions such as diabetes and HIV/AIDS. People who have these diseases and conditions can have years and, sometimes, decades to live.

Diane then comments on an article that was written by James Swanson in response to the Why should we be afraid of assisted suicide article that was entitled “Trapped alive”. Diane writes:

With one deft scratch of the quill, the authors of this article have condemned hundreds of people to a life in hell. They include both my father and a good friend, who both live in Edmonton, and are both intelligent people who have become trapped in bodies that are failing. My father's life, as he knew it, ended several years ago when he was struck down by an automobile while out jogging. What parts of his body that are left, reside in a wheelchair. This once-active man in his 90s now resides in a body that is self-destructing in a painful manner. My dad has no quality of life, only a hope that the next day will not be as painful as the last.

My friend is still practising her profession, despite the advanced ALS that has a hold on her. She has made arrangements for a death with dignity in a far more compassionate country. Her ability and foresight have allowed her to control her own future.

Diane then explains how she responded to the letter by Swanson. Diane wrote:

James G. Swanson's letter demonstrates the profound devaluation that too many feel toward those of us with severe physical disabilities. Swanson describes his father and a friend, disabled by an accident and ALS, respectively, as "trapped" and "condemned to a life in hell." Social messages that one is "better off dead than disabled" permeate society, including our families.

Swanson's solution to the so-called problem of disability is assisted suicide. Like most, he hasn't noticed the difference between suicide and assisted suicide. Apparently, he doesn't think it matters if someone's family views their life as devoid of quality. There's no sign of concern that we might feel that our existence is a burden to those closest to us. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities rightly opposes assisted suicide. A society that not only agrees with a disabled person's suicide, but guarantees that our suicide attempt results in death, is not treating us as equals. We deserve the same suicide prevention as everybody else, not a streamlined path to death.

Alison Davis

The Diane reprints the article written by Alison Davis, the founder of the disability rights group No Less Human who wrote:

I was glad to see your excellent editorial stating the case against euthanasia. If it had been available to me some years ago, I wouldn't now be writing to you. I have several severe disabling conditions. I use a wheelchair full time and a vent at night. I have severe pain, which even morphine can't control.

I wanted to die for more than 10 years, at a time when doctors thought my life expectancy was very short. I attempted suicide seriously several times, and was saved, only because friends found me in time and took me to the emergency room, where I was treated.

At first, I was angry with them for thwarting my wishes. Now, I'm eternally grateful. I want to live now, even though my pain is worse than it was when I wanted to die. What changed my mind is friends who refused to accept my view that my life had no value, and a group of very poor children, who loved me wonderfully and overwhelmingly. I found a reason to live in reaching out to help others, rather than turning the negativity on myself. If assisted suicide had been available then, no one would ever have known the doctors' prognosis was wrong, or that I'd be missing the best years of my life.

The case is continuing in the Vancouver court and being heard by Justice Lynn Smith. Diane Coleman ends the article by stating:

The Canadian Department of Justice has filed various affidavits in the case, including one by Rhonda Wiebe, a woman with disabilities who is Vice President of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and Co-Chair of the CCD Ending of Life Ethics Committee and, I’m happy to report, a new member of Not Dead Yet’s Board of Directors. We’ll be following the case closely

The Eyeless "I" of Assisted Suicide

2011-11-29T14:05:00.001-05:00

Disability Rights Activist, Mark Pickup, wrote this response to a woman who asked for his thoughts on the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Mark Pickup

A Canadian court is considering a challenge to the nation’s law prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia. Consequently the topic is in the news. I received an email from a woman who doesn’t know what to think as the assisted suicide camp is pulling out all their compassionate sounding euphemisms to promote death. She wanted my thoughts. Below is the text of my comments to her:

Assisted suicide is not about pain control. Palliative care in the 21st Century has come so far as to be able to eliminate virtually all physical pain. Assisted suicide is about the illusion of personal control even over death.

Death is not a right, it is an eventuality that will visit us all regardless of what any law may state. It is life that must be protected. All the great human rights documents such as the American Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Declaration of Universal Human Rights and even Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms place the Right to Life as the first legal right. Why? Without the Right to Life assured all other rights become arbitrary and uncertain.

A truly progressive and compassionate society is concerned about life with dignity – especially for those who do not have it. Death with dignity is not an event, it is the natural conclusion of having lived with dignity. Dignity is not achieved by withholding water and food or injecting poison into a person’s bloodstream when they are at their lowest point. That is not dignity: it is profound abandonment! We have a right to expect the best palliative care and pain management.

Ask yourself how assisted suicide acceptance serves the Common Good? It doesn’t. It will put vulnerable people at risk.

The push for assisted suicide is the natural conclusion of personal autonomy gone amuck.

Gloria Taylor wants assisted suicide for herself which is different from suicide because it obviously requires assistance — a coarsening of some other person’s conscience. The eyeless “I” of assisted suicide¹ does not consider the consequences to others.

Autonomy is diametrically opposed to community. The natural conclusion to unfettered autonomy is the right to even self-destruction. That is what is being considered in the BC Supreme courtroom as I write these words. Acceptance of the autonomy of suicide (assisted or otherwise) is to reject the interconnectedness of community. It proclaims with a final shout and sneer, “I am my own island!”

Canada is not 33 million little islands entire unto ourselves. As the 17th Century poet and divine, John Donne wrote “No man is an island entire unto itself. Every man is a part of the continent, a part of the main. … any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Only independence and autonomy — the eyeless “I” — sees self and self alone. Interdependence and the interconnectedness of community call for consideration for others — especially the weakest.

You see, I do not have a right to ask or demand something that may hurt others. The independence of the individual must only exist within the interdependence of the community. If the desire of the individual threatens the security of whole then individual desires must give way to the greater interest of the community. Otherwise we are only left with 30-million little islands without the whole of a continent, a nation, a community that protects the interests of the weakest against the interests of the powerful.

And so the choice before us is stark: Independent and autonomy versus interdependence and community. Laws must protect the weakest and that’s what Canada’s law against assisted suicide does.

United States Overview

2011-11-28T10:25:00.001-05:00

By Margaret Dore - Choice is an Illusion. Link to the original article.

There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. In these states, statutes give criminal and civil immunity to doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient's suicide. Oregon's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 1997. Washington's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. Washington's act is modeled on Oregon's act.

In Oregon and Washington, assisted-suicide laws apply to "terminal" patients, defined in terms of having less than six months to live. Such persons are not necessarily dying. Consider, for example, Jeanette Hall, alive 11 years after her terminal diagnosis. More recent proposals to legalize assisted suicide have included people who are clearly not dying. See here, here and here.

In Montana, Baxter v. State gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability although proponents argue that this is the case. This year, a bill to reverse Baxter's potential defense was defeated. In Montana, the leading group against assisted suicide is Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

This year, Idaho enacted a statute strengthening its law against assisted suicide. This was after proponents falsely claimed that assisted suicide was already legal. For more information, click here.

This year, bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, Hawaii and New Hampshire. In Vermont, identical legalization bills were introduced in the House and Senate, but not put on for vote before the legislative session ended.

In Hawaii, where a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated this year as well as in prior years, proponents claim that assisted suicide is legal. For more information, click here. See also Hawaii Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

In Connecticut, a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide was dismissed in 2010.

In Massachusetts, there is a pending ballot initiative to enact an Oregon/Washington style act that applies to "terminal" patients defined as having less than six months to live. For more information, see The Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative: "Choice" is an Illusion.

In the US, no assisted suicide/euthanasia law has ever made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

It's too dangerous to allow others to kill us

2011-11-28T10:05:00.001-05:00

An interesting article by Brian Purdy, a freelance writer and former Crown Prosecuter, was published today in the Calgary Herald titled: It's too dangerous to allow others to kill us. Brian wrote about the death of his mother and examines the questions of who would make the decision to end her life and why?

Purdy begins his article by stating:

The debate about the legalization of assisting suicide is in the news again, with another court case approaching the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are two points of view. The first is that every person has a right to end one's own life, so why should it not be legal to assist someone to do so? A person at the end of life can get help to end suffering and an unbearable dwindling away to an inevitable end. Why should a doctor or anyone else be made a criminal for an act of mercy?

The second view is that legalizing assisting a suicide is a dangerous slippery slope. Lord Acton, who famously said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," also said something else about power. He said, "do not grant powers on the assumption they will not be abused."

Whereas, I would not agree with Purdy that our arguement is simply based on a slippery slope, let's look at his further arguments. He then writes about the death of his mother. He states:

When my mother died years ago, she was old, and in a hospital bed for the last 18 months. Before that, for years, she hadn't been able to care for herself. No one could say she was productive in her last years. There was constant, expensive care.

After she died, I thought again about intervention to end the life of people like Mother, who dwindle into a prolonged dying. She had, after all, been declining for years. Should she have been put out of her misery?

Well, she wasn't miserable, as far as anyone knows. She had strokes and couldn't talk for the last two years, but didn't seem to be in pain.

Besides, who would make that decision to end Mother's life? Me?

Another family member? Hell no. We stood to profit by inheriting her estate. And, we could eliminate our burden of care. Either way, definite conflict of interest, no matter how good the intentions.

The government? Double no. The government subsidized her extended care, and would be glad to be rid of the expense.

Mother was a burden to government, even if she had, together with Dad, paid taxes longer than most people have lived. It is just too dangerous to trust any cash-strapped government with the power to rid itself of unproductive citizens.

A medical committee? Triple no. Mother was even more directly a problem to the doctors who had all those boring check-ins on her. It's too easy sign a report saying "let's get rid of this one".

Who, then? Anyone? Well, yes. Mother could decide to end her life. If she decided herself, she had the right to bring her life to an end. But only Mother could make that decision, and it's the law that she had to do it herself without assistance.

The argument by Purdy appears weak when you consider that some people, such as a person with ALS, cannot kill themselves without assistance, but that is also where the disability community joins into the issue because they make it clear that the life experience of people with disabilities is one where they experience more abuse and neglect, than the able-bodied population and they are often pressured by people who they are dependent upon for their basic care. Purdy then concludes his article by stating:

Life isn't easy, and neither is dying. Should we allow our doctors to become legal killers to make dying easier? Who's going to be there to make sure that the patient fully understood the situation and gave informed consent to the doctor who provided the lethal pill or injection? It's not a simple question. So far our courts and our legislators have said no, and maybe that's the way it should be, tough as it is on some people at the end of their lives.

TV Ontario show debated the one-sided report from the Royal Society of Canada.

2011-11-25T14:00:00.004-05:00

I was on the TV Ontario - The Agenda show - with Steve Paikin last night (November 24, 2011).

It was interesting that Udo Schuklenk, who was the chair of the Royal Society of Canada End-of-Life Decision Making panel, was uncomfortable with the one-sided membership of the panel.

After the show he stated to the rest of us that:

"he would have assembled the panel differently."

Read the comment by John Coppard on the TV Ontario website concerning this show. (Link).

To find the video of the show go to (link) and scroll down to the November 24, 2011 program on euthanasia and assisted suicide. If not try this (link).

Euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands increased by 19% in 2010.

2011-11-23T17:05:00.002-05:00

Recent news articles concerning the push by the euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands to create mobile euthanasia teams to make euthanasia more accessible to people with disabilities and the frail elderly, also reported that the 2010 Dutch euthanasia statistics indicate that there were 3136 reported euthanasia cases which represents an increase of 19% since 2009.

It is important to note that the reported cases of euthanasia rose 13% in 2009.

The Dutch are very careful with reporting their euthanasia statistics. Therefore there were 3136 reported euthanasia deaths, approximately 100 assisted suicide deaths, approximately 500 deaths without request or consent and approximately 10% of all deaths involved intentionally dehydrating the person before they died. We also know from the most recent Dutch euthanasia reports that approximately 20% of all euthanasia deaths are not reported.

It is important to note that the Dutch Medical Association has also recently approved euthanasia for people with dementia and alzheimer's and even for lonliness. So much for euthanasia requiring consent and capacity.

Recently the Royal Society of Canada released a report on - End of Life Decision Making. This report suggested that there was nothing to be concerned about in the jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal.

Too bad the Royal Society of Canada report was a one-sided sham that was written by leaders of the euthanasia lobby, whereby 5 of 6 of its "experts" were well known euthanasia advocates.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is out-of-control.

Let's protect our citizens by keeping euthanasia illegal.

Help with depression, not assisted suicide.

2011-11-23T16:28:00.001-05:00

Dr Charles Bentz

Dr. Charles J. Bentz, who is a physician in the department of General Medicine and Geriatrics at the Oregon Health & Sciences In Portland Oregon responded to the series of articles and letters that have been published in the Victoria Times Colonist. His letter was printed today.

Bentz refers to a depressed patient of his who died by assisted suicide in Oregon. This is what he said:

I am a physician practicing medicine in Oregon where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I disagree with a writer's assessment that Oregon's law has worked well.

As one example, a few years ago, my patient, a 76 year-old man presented with a sore on his arm which turned out to be cancer. I referred him to an cancer specialist for evaluation and therapy. He was an avid hiker and as he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity and became depressed, which was documented in his chart.

He expressed a wish for assisted-suicide to the cancer specialist, but rather than taking the time and effort to address his depression, or to contact me as his primary physician and as someone who knew him, she asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide. I told her that I did not concur and that addressing his depression would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription.

Unfortunately, two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor.
In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him.

Don't make Oregon's mistake.
Charles J. Bentz, MD

It appears that depressed people are dying by assisted suicide in Oregon.

Royal Society of Canada - Euthanasia report was fixed from the beginning.

2011-11-23T15:05:00.001-05:00

Wesley Smith

This is a reprint of the blog comment by Wesley J Smith that he published on Wednesday, November 16 under the title: I Told You The Fix Was In On Canadian Euthanasia Panel.

It is interesting that, even though Smith and Schadenberg both identified the Royal Society of Canada commission as fixed from the beginning, that the media continue to refer to them as an "expert panel."

I Told You The Fix Was In on Canadian Euthanasia Panel.

The in-the-tank media is huffing and puffing, trying to make something important out of an entirely predictable recommendation by the Royal Society of Canada commission to legalize euthanasia. But commissions can be created to obtain a specific result, as this one was and did.

In fact, I told you this very thing would happen two years ago, to be precise, on October 28, 2009. Here’s theSecondhand Smoke post, “Stacking the Deck for Euthanasia in Canadian ‘End of Life’ Commission” in its entirety:”

“Expert commissions” to advise on contentious issues of public policy are usually political tools designed to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to pave the way for a desired policy changes. Remember that as we take a look at a new commission being appointed by the Royal Society of Canada to look into end of life issues. From the story:

Queen’s Philosophy professor Udo Schuklenk has been selected to head a prestigious new international panel on “End-of-Life Decision Making” in Canada. Appointed by the Royal Society of Canada, the expert panel will investigate key aspects of this critical issue – including voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide – and prepare a public report.

Stories such as this never seem to look deeper than the job titles of the panelists, as if they come to their work with no preexisting positions. So, I decide to check, starting with Udo Schuklenk. What a surprise: He’s a pro euthanasia philosopher. How do I know? He’s said so. For example, in an essay explaining why he is an atheist, he wrote:

No matter how unbearably patients suffer due to illness or injury toward the end of their lives, the world’s monotheistic religions stand as one in their rejection of many dying patients’ requests to end their lives in dignity. That we may well be of sound mind, and that there is no prospect of our condition improving, makes no difference to their stance. Our own considered judgment that life is not worth living any longer counts for nothing to organized monotheistic religions. According to them, we are not ethically entitled to ask for physician assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. This is surprising, given that at the end of our natural lives churches have promised us that we would be going to heaven – or hell, as the case might be. If at the end of a decently lived life we would go to heaven and enjoy eternal life, why are they fighting our earthly death so vigorously? None of this makes any sense at all if we take religious beliefs about our afterlife seriously. Once again substantial, avoidable human suffering is a direct consequence of religious interference with our end-of-life decision-making.

I don’t care about his religious views, but to chair a panel with such a clear view in favor of assisted suicide, indicates the direction in which the commission’s recommendations are expected (designed) to go.

But perhaps I am being too cynical. Let’s see who else is on the commission: Ah, Scot philosophy professor Sheila McClean who wrote The Case for Assisted Suicide, a book described as arguing fervently in favor of legalization. Hmm, I wonder how she will vote?

Another commissioner is a Dutch euthanasia researcher. Cute.

Then there’s Jocelyn Downie, author of Dying Justice, a book urging the decriminalization of both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The bias isn’t even subtle.

I spent some time researching the views of the two remaining members, but neither seemed to be particularly involved in the issue. So let’s count them, at least for now, as neutrals. No matter: Even assuming both are as adamantly opposed to assisted suicide as their co panelists appear to be for it, the deck is stacked, the fix is in, 4-2 for permitting assisted suicide in at least some cases.

The next step in this Kibuki Theater will be for the media to trip over themselves to report breathlessly that “the experts” have deeply pondered, and determined–after much hand wringing, there is always hand wringing–that assisted suicide should be allowed. It is all so scripted and predictable.

Gee, I was right. But then, on these matters, I usually am.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Ugly issue back again.

2011-11-23T14:06:00.002-05:00

Jean Echlin

Jean Echlin who is a nurse consultant and adjunct associate professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Nursing and the founding VP of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition wrote an article on the current euthanasia and assisted suicide debate in Canada that was published in the Windsor Star today under the title: Ugly issue back again.

The following is an edited version of the excellent article by Jean Echlin.

Ugly issue back again.

With the advent of Carter versus the Attorney General of Canada, Canada's laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide are being challenged again. This despite the fact that our federal Parliament vetoed Bill C-384 that sought to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia by an overwhelming vote of 228 to 59 in 2010.

Included in the British Columbia appeal is an effort to legalize these practices as "medical treatment," meaning that a medical doctor or "a person operating under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" will be allowed to assist a patient's suicide. This could be a family member and could be done at home.

If the pro-killing side gets its way, five people on the Supreme Court can overrule Parliament and demand change in the Criminal Code that forbids euthanasia and assisted suicide. What would this scenario do to our democratic process and the rights of a majority of Canadians?

Who would be at risk? You are. So is everyone in this country.

To paraphrase many knowledgeable authorities within the Euthanasia Prevention Coalitions worldwide, the request for a change in our Criminal Code is an invitation to elder abuse.

Many of our elderly population feel abandoned and burdensome to our society and healthcare system. If assisted suicide is legalized, it will empower the health-care system and family members to pressure older people to shorten their lives.

Persons with disabilities are equally at risk. The elderly and those with disabilities are groups that society often discriminates against and fails to respect or protect. Rather, these groups are looked upon as costly burdens.

Another significant health issue is suicide prevention. A change in the criminal code would foster the idea of suicide for those with depression and anxiety. It's called: "suicide contagion." In other words, one suicide encourages others. Persons with mental health is-sues are at increased risk and can be easily manipulated.

My own list of those at high risk includes partners in scenarios of domestic violence, especially when there is a power imbalance. It would be exceptionally easy for the powerful partner to quietly kill the "offensive partner" and just claim he or she "was so depressed and pleaded for assistance in dying."

Children must be included in the risk groups since the Netherlands has developed a protocol for killing children with even minor disabilities up to the age of 12.

The "Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care" will be releasing its research and recommendations regarding pain management, palliative care, elder abuse and suicide prevention.

It is imperative that Parliament and all Canadians follow and adhere to the profoundly important message from this non-partisan committee.

Glad to be alive - Alison Davis responds to Calgary Herald article.

2011-11-23T10:13:00.000-05:00

Alison Davis

Alison Davis, the founder of the disability rights group, No Less Human, responded to the editorial that was in the Calgary Herald on November 20, 2011 entitled: "No right to be killed; Doctor assisted suicide should not be allowed." Her response was printed in the Calgary Herald today under the title of "Glad to be Alive." This is what Alison Davis stated:

Re: "No right to be killed; Doctor assisted suicide should not be allowed," Editorial, Nov. 20.

I was glad to see your excellent editorial stating the case against euthanasia. If it had been available to me some years ago, I wouldn't now be writing to you. I have several severe disabling conditions. I use a wheelchair full time and a vent at night. I have severe pain, which even morphine can't control.

I wanted to die for more than 10 years, at a time when doctors thought my life expectancy was very short. I attempted suicide seriously several times, and was saved, only because friends found me in time and took me to the emergency room, where I was treated.

At first, I was angry with them for thwarting my wishes. Now, I'm eternally grateful. I want to live now, even though my pain is worse than it was when I wanted to die. What changed my mind is friends who refused to accept my view that my life had no value, and a group of very poor children, who loved me wonderfully and overwhelmingly. I found a reason to live in reaching out to help others, rather than turning the negativity on myself. If assisted suicide had been available then, no one would ever have known the doctors' prognosis was wrong, or that I'd be missing the best years of my life.

Alison Davis, Blandford Forum, U.K.

Suicide Prevention - Not Dead Yet opposes assisted suicide

2011-11-23T09:57:00.000-05:00

Diane Coleman

Diane Coleman, the founder of the disability rights group - Not Dead Yet, wrote a response to the letter by James Swanson. Swanson advocated that euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalized for people who he described as "Trapped Alive". Coleman's letter was published in the Calgary Herald today. She responded this way:

Re: "Trapped alive," Letter, Nov. 21.

James G. Swanson's letter demonstrates the profound devaluation that too many feel toward those of us with severe physical disabilities. Swanson describes his father and a friend, disabled by an accident and ALS, respectively, as "trapped" and "condemned to a life in hell." Social messages that one is "better off dead than disabled" permeate society, including our families.

Swanson's solution to the so-called problem of disability is assisted suicide. Like most, he hasn't noticed the difference between suicide and assisted suicide. Apparently, he doesn't think it matters if someone's family views their life as devoid of quality. There's no sign of concern that we might feel that our existence is a burden to those closest to us. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities rightly opposes assisted suicide. A society that not only agrees with a disabled person's suicide, but guarantees that our suicide attempt results in death, is not treating us as equals. We deserve the same suicide prevention as everybody else, not a streamlined path to death.

Elder Abuse a Hidden Crime

2011-11-22T15:16:00.001-05:00

Bruce Campion-Smith, wrote an article that was published in the Toronto Star on November 17 concerning the release of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care report in Ottawa Canada last week. The article titled: Elder Abuse: A 'Hidden Crime': MP says - looked at the recommendations in the Parliamentary committee report and the comments made by Frank Valeriote (Lib) MP Guelph.

The article states:

A criminal crackdown and greater public awareness are needed to combat the growing problem of elder abuse in Canada, which leaves thousands of seniors “wounded and frightened” every year, a new study says.

Just as society turned a blind eye to child and spousal abuse decades ago, abused seniors are suffering from the same neglect today, warns an all-party committee of MPs.

Their report issued Thursday calls for a “cultural transformation” to ensure that elder abuse is seen as “absolutely unacceptable.”

The report estimates that 400,000 seniors have been abused in Canada, often by someone they know — a family member, caregiver, neighbour or landlord.

Frank Valeriote MP

The article then quotes Valeriote who stated:

“I’m shocked at the lack of awareness. If we can build awareness and just make it wrong, the way we did with spousal and child abuse then people will be more apt to break the cycle of silence,” Liberal MP Frank Valeriote said.

“That’s why there is so much abuse and it’s so unreported. Seniors are vulnerable psychologically but they’re also dependent . . . they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them,” said Valeriote, one of the co-chairs of the committee that wrote the report.

“There’s all sorts of abuse. Landlords are abusing older people that are living in squalor conditions,” he said.

The report makes a number of recommendations to curb senior abuse, which it calls a “too often hidden crime.”

It urges Ottawa to establish a new office dedicated to combating elder abuse and suggests funding to better research the reasons behind the problem.

It also recommends legal services for low income seniors and emergency shelters to provide safe, short-term refuge.

It also suggests that the courts aren’t taking the problem seriously as it urges a “shift in perception” within the legal system. Rarely are abuse cases successfully prosecuted and when they are, “token” penalties are handed out.

“It is essential that Canada comes to the point where violence and abuse against elderly persons is no longer tolerated even tacitly,” it says.

Not Dead Yet: Articles concerning "mobile euthanasia teams" is inaccurate

2011-11-22T12:58:00.002-05:00

Stephen Drake, the research analyst for the Disability rights group, NOT DEAD YET, published an excellent commenary on their blog, last Thursday, about the article in the Associated Press concerning the new push in the Netherlands for "mobile euthanasia teams." It appears that the Dutch euthanasia lobby believes that people with disabilities would benefit from "mobile teams" coming to a persons home and lethally injecting them.

NOT DEAD YET not only comments on the concept of "mobile teams" that will euthanize the unfortunate people with disabilities, but they also commented on the clearly false statements by the Associated Press. Please read the following article that is reprinted for your pleasure.
------------------------------------------

New Move to Expand Euthanasia in the Netherlands - Associated Press and DutchNews.nl misrepresent Dutch practice.

It's hardly news when word comes out from the Netherlands that either the government, medical professionals or some private organization are seeking to expand the scope of the euthanasia laws. After all, the consistent trend in the Netherlands has been to expand the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide by expanding eligibility criteria, as we've written about here, here and here.

It's also not unusual for the newswire reporters to disseminate articles on assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the Netherlands that are just factually wrong - often egregiously. The Associated Press, in spite of having a code of journalistic ethics it claims to adhere to, is one of the most consistent offenders. The AP, in fact, went so far as to conduct a poll on Kevorkian and assisted suicide that was factually incorrect, corrupting the validity of the poll responses. The AP then used its own flawed poll as news that they themselves covered, acting as both newsmaker and reporter - an unacknowledged conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Well, there's a new story out of the Netherlands and - as I said - it's really quite unremarkable that a group is trying to expand the practice of euthanasia. But the coverage so far actually is quite remarkable in that I haven't read one news account that describes the so-called "strict guidelines" for euthanasia eligibility in the Netherlands accurately. And one of those news sources is actually quite disturbing.

First here's the intro to the news from the Associated Press, titled Dutch group proposes 'mobile' teams:

AMSTERDAM (AP) — The main Dutch euthanasia advocacy group says it supports creating "mobile" euthanasia teams of doctors for terminally ill patients who want to die in their own homes, rather than in a hospital.

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2001 in cases where patients are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery. (The italics above were added for emphasis.)

A careful reader might notice that the two descriptions of "patients" given in the first and second sentences don't match. Anyone who is actually familiar with the euthanasia eligibility criteria in the Netherlands will know that neither description is correct. Some of the media sites this appeared on included the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and cbsnews .

Did no one notice that one sentence stated that it's terminally ill people who can get euthanasia while the other sentence asserts that "patients who are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery" qualify for euthanasia?

As I said, neither definition is correct - and I'll provide that definition with an authoritative source at the end.

What really surprised me about this is that when I did my search, what I found - for once - the AP reporter who wrote this didn't generate the misinformation on his or her own (or lift it from previous erroneous AP articles).

This time at least some of the misinformation was generated by a Dutch news source. News sources in the Netherlands tend to be biased - naturally - in favor of the euthanasia practices in that country, but are generally accurate when describing the "strict guidelines" and eligibility criteria.

Not this time. Here is how eligibility is described in the DutchNews.nl article titled Voluntary euthanasia group plans to set up 'help to die' teams:

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands under strict conditions. For example, the patient must be suffering unbearable pain and the doctor must be convinced the patient is making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required. (Emphasis added.)

In fact, there is no requirement that a person be in actual pain to be able to be "helped" with euthanasia. All that is required is that they have "unbearable suffering" - a broad, hard-to-define and very subjective term that has fueled the expansion of euthanasia practice in that country.

Don't take my word for it. You can download a pdf document from this site on the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport that spells out the rules. I lack the ability to cut and paste content from a pdf document to this blog, but here's a summary from a different section of the same Ministry that summarizes the guidelines:

The greatest care has been taken to regulate care for patients who are suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement. Euthanasia may only be carried out at the explicit request of the patient.

Neither this summary or the longer version in the pdf document linked above mention "pain" or "terminal" as necessary to "qualify" for euthanasia.

Maybe it's simple laziness and incompetence (that explains a lot of the lousy reporting in the US) or maybe this particular Dutch news organization just figured if the AP and other news organizations insist on misrepresenting euthanasia in the Netherlands, they'd just play along for consistency's sake.

I plan on sending a link and copy of this blog entry to both the AP and to DutchNews.nl; experience tells me that there'll be no reply from the AP. I wonder if DutchNews.nl will follow suit on that as well. --Stephen Drake

Canadian Cancer Society Welcomes Caregiver Support and Palliative Care Recommendations in Report Released by Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care

2011-11-21T11:37:00.002-05:00

Canadian Cancer Society Welcomes Caregiver Support and Palliative Care Recommendations in Report Released by Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care

TORONTO, Nov. 17, 2011 /CNW/ - The Canadian Cancer Society applauds recommendations about family caregiver support and palliative care in a report released today by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care (PCPCC) and urges the federal government to take action.

The report - Not to be forgotten: care of vulnerable Canadians - focuses on elderly, dying and vulnerable Canadians and provides recommendations for improving palliative care, family caregiver support, elder abuse and suicide prevention. The PCPCC is an ad-hoc, all party group of federal MPs who formed the committee on their own initiative. The report reflects testimony from hundreds of people at 24 hearings and local round tables across Canada.

"The spirit of non-partisan collaboration shown by the MPs on this committee is a great example of Parliament working at its best - MPs working across party lines on issues of concern to Canadians," says Dan Demers, Director, Public Issues, Canadian Cancer Society.

Palliative care

"Currently, we have a complicated patchwork of palliative care in Canada, with significant disparities within and between provinces," says Demers. " This means that some patients may suffer needlessly during an already difficult time. This is unacceptable. People at the end of life are vulnerable and we must not abandon them."

The PCPCC's recommendations on palliative care include:

urging the federal government to re-establish a Palliative Care Secretariat to conduct and support research, as well as facilitating communication and collaboration among the various levels of government and community stakeholders
collaborative development and implementation of national standards for quality palliative care
coordination and dissemination of palliative and end-of-life research and information resources
developing a flexible integrated model of palliative healthcare delivery that would take into account the geographic, regional and cultural diversity of Canada while providing a funding mechanism to help the provinces and territories with implementation.

Family Caregiver Support

Eighty-eight per cent of Canadians said that providing care for a family member would have a negative impact on their financial situation, according to a Canadian Cancer Society 2011 poll.

"The poll sent a clear signal that the majority of Canadians believe that family caregivers need more financial support and that this should be a priority healthcare issue," says Demers.

The Society has been advocating for better financial support for family caregivers through improvements to the Compassionate Care Benefit, which is administered by the federal employment insurance program. These improvements, which are reflected in the PCPCC's recommendations, include:

Timeframe for financial benefits: Increase the benefit period from the current six weeks to 26 weeks, accessible during a 52-week period.
More flexibility: allow people to claim benefits for partial weeks taken over a longer period, rather than blocks of weeks at a time.
Revise eligibility criteria: change the terminology for people eligible for benefits from "significant risk of death" to "significant need of caregiving due to a life threatening illness."

The Society also supports the PCPCC's recommendation that the federal government establish a refundable tax credit for family caregivers to help families with the costs of providing care. The refundable tax credit, an enhancement to the family caregiver tax credit announced in the March federal budget, would provide a lump sum reimbursement of caregiver expenses, which would be of benefit to lower income families.

"More must be done in Canada to ensure people dying from cancer and other serious illnesses have access to high-quality palliative care no matter where they live," says Demers. "And it is simply unacceptable for family caregivers, who are already giving so much, to also have to deal with financial difficulties. The Society will continue to lobby the federal government to take action on these two important issues."

The report - Not to be forgotten: care of vulnerable Canadians - is available on the website for the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care: link to the full report.

The Canadian Cancer Society fights cancer by doing everything we can to prevent cancer, save lives and support people living with cancer. Join the fight! Go to www.ifightcancer.ca to find out how you can help. When you want to know more about cancer, visit our website at cancer.ca or call our toll-free bilingual Cancer Information Service at 1 888 939-3333.

Professor Tom Koch responds to Royal Society of Canada one-sided report.

2011-11-20T21:22:00.002-05:00

Professor Tom Koch, a consultant in bioethics and gerontology in Toronto and Vancouver and works in chronic care and hospice, responded to the Royal Society of Canada pro-euthanasia propaganda report, in an article that was printed in the Toronto Star on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

The article follows:

Confusing the issue

By Tom Koch
Forget issues of terminal illness and the end of life. The court case that began Monday in the B.C. Supreme Court is not about the right to die (you will die) or a right to life (you’ve got that). It is not about the right to be free of pain in the midst of an illness. Palliative care, all agree, is the basis of good chronic care medicine.

One of the confusions in the case and in the Royal Society of Canada’s report on end-of-life decision-making released Tuesday is that they pretend to concern termination by physicians in the late stage of inevitably terminal illness. They are, however, framed to include potentially anyone who, dissatisfied by life, seeks state approval for a medically assisted termination.

In the case currently before the B.C. Supreme Court, the principal plaintiff, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, argues in its statement of claim that Section 7 of the Charter of Rights — which gives us all the right to life, liberty and security of person — should be read to mean a right to medical termination upon request. Any state-imposed restriction on the right they champion is an affront, their petition says, to human dignity.

They further argue there is a duty under the Charter’s Section 15 to provide terminal assistance to those who by dint of physical limits cannot kill themselves. Anything less would be a kind of disability discrimination.

That’s the question, in a nutshell. Does a right to freedom and security of person include the right to be killed upon request by state-licensed physicians?

The case is being presented — in the public and in the courts — as if it was about the desire of those at the painful end of life to be released early from it. And, too, the Royal Society of Canada’s report is called “End-of-life decision-making.” The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Joe Arvay, told the Toronto Star’s Petti Fong, “For a small and important percentage, the process of dying will be very painful. . . It is about those people this case is about.”

But the sole medical plaintiff, 63-year-old Gloria Taylor, a person with Lou Gehrig’s disease, is not in pain. Court filings instead state her condition is well managed and any physical discomfort well palliated. Nor is she in danger of imminent death. Taylor is not cachectic (wasting), is not losing her voice (at least according to TV clips) and is mobile, using a wheelchair. She fears incontinence as a future complication.

Other plaintiffs include Lee Carter and her husband, Hollis Johnson, who two years ago accompanied her mother, Kathleen, to Switzerland where she was given a fatal overdose of barbiturates at Dignitas, a euthanasia clinic. In their statement they agree that Kathleen Carter’s condition, while limiting, was well palliated and that she received fairly extensive care and support. She might have lived for some years had she not gone to Switzerland for termination.

And yet most of the affidavits filed for and against the plaintiffs’ case focus upon the condition of the seriously ill if not also end-stage patient in pain and suffering. That’s the public face of the libertarian argument advanced by the plaintiffs and by members of the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel.

Those opposing the plaintiffs’ argument do so on a number of grounds. They worry, for example, that making death a convenient option will make it the preferred treatment in cases where medical resources are limited. They fear, too, a “slippery slope” in which what is argued for the terminally ill, and then the seriously ill, will become a vehicle for the depressed and those challenged in any number of ways.

Both the plaintiffs’ filings and the Royal Society’s report make this concern real.

Others filing against the plaintiffs’ claims note that people who have suffered a grievous injury or stroke resulting in paralysis or the loss of a limb are often depressed. With time, rehabilitation and treatment, most find that after a period of adjustment, life, while different, is well worth living. Many continue as valuable members of society. But if the plaintiff’s petition were accepted, then people depressed by the effects of an illness (stroke, for example) or an injury (paralysis) could choose to die immediately. As a result, we would lose those among us whose challenges would otherwise not have been terminal.

To guard against that, the issue is framed by both sides as one of medical judgment, one in which doctors would be the ones who assessed a patient’s life and fitness to continue. But if one takes the argument by some whose affidavits the plaintiffs have enlisted in support, this is unacceptably paternalistic. If it’s a person’s choice, so be it. Doctors may be technicians in the enterprise but not the arbiters of life and death.

That, the plaintiffs’ brief implies, is okay. It’s . . . their choice. Some argue that laws in U.S. states (Washington and Oregon, for example) and European countries (Belgium, Holland, Switzerland) lay to rest those fears. Others quoting the same studies say they prove the slippery slope is real.

But in none of those jurisdictions is termination anything but a medical judgment, the last procedure in the extreme case and one that is never easy. This is an argument made by one of the proponents of the Dutch euthanasia system, Amsterdam physician Gerrit Kimsma. A practising physician and proponent of liberalizing physician termination, he has used it on patients with late stage, incurable conditions. But even in those extremes it is, he says in his lectures, always an emotional and traumatic last choice made at the end of life when all other palliative and treatment options have failed.

That is not what is argued here, however, although the B.C. Supreme Court case and the Royal Society’s report are dressed up as if that were the case.

Doctor-assisted suicide is dangerous for us all

2011-11-19T21:16:00.003-05:00

Licia Corbella

The following article was written by Licia Corbella and published in the Calgary Herald on November 19, 2011.

It’s been a sickly couple of weeks for life. This past Monday, a B.C. Supreme Court case kicked off in which five people are seeking the right to choose to be killed by a physician. The very next day, the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) released a report that urges the federal government to legalize assisted suicide in Canada. A summary of the End of Life Decision Making report states:

“The evidence from years of experience and research where euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are permitted does not support claims that decriminalization will result in vulnerable persons being subjected to abuse or a slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia.”

Wow. The RSC panel members must be really lousy researchers. At the very least, someone should teach them how to use Google. Why? Because on Nov. 9, it was announced that a woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease was euthanized in the Netherlands in March. In Holland, this was not even big news.

The horror stories in the Netherlands, where euthanasia was legalized in April 2002, but where it was practised for years prior to that without censure, go way back and prove that there is not just a slippery slope, but a veritable vertical skating rink. Two comprehensive studies, headed up by the Attorney General of the High Council of the Netherlands — Prof. J. Remmelink — reveal utterly shocking examples of abuse, or rather, murder.

The first of these reports was released in September 1991. It found that in 1990 alone:
* 1,031 people were killed by their physicians without the patient’s request or consent.
Of those 1,031 people:
* 14 per cent were found to be fully competent;
* 72 per cent had NEVER expressed that they would want their lives ended.

A similar report was conducted in 1995 in Holland and 950 people were killed by their physicians without their consent.

When euthanasia began being practised in the Netherlands, it was intended only for elderly, terminally ill patients who could give informed consent. Since then, things have “progressed” in Holland. Depressed teenagers over the age of 16 can seek to have their lives ended without parental consent. And even babies born with mild cases of spina bifida were killed by their physicians sometimes without parental consent. As a result of that hair-raising reality, the Netherlands brought in what is called The Groningen Protocol of 2004. (The RSC should Google that.) The protocol, written by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, contains guidelines under which physicians can perform “active ending of life on infants” without having to fear legal prosecution.

Need more examples that are a little more recent and closer to home? In 2008, Barbara Wagner, then 64, of Springfield, Ore. — where euthanasia has been legal since 1994 — was sent a letter by the state health insurance plan that told her it would not pay for her potentially life-saving chemotherapy drugs to help fight her lung cancer, but they would pay for her physician to kill her.

Her answer: “I told them, I said, ‘Who do you guys think you are?’ You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer?’”

Sadly, that’s is not an isolated case. It was pretty much a form letter. The same thing happened to Randy Stroup from Oregon. He wanted medical care to help him live, but he was offered death by physician instead. Neither of these patients considered that option “compassionate” — one of the euphemisms used by right-to-die activists.

In the Netherlands, there have been public statements where elderly people who seek medical care are called “selfish.” Many people in Holland, not just the elderly, have felt compelled to carry around “Do not kill me cards” in their wallets should they be in an accident. And the royal society says there’s no evidence of a slippery slope? They must think climbing Mount Everest is akin to a walk in the park.

I could go on and on with shocking recent examples from other countries as well. So, it’s safe to say that the RSC’s “expert research” has been completely discredited and its recommendations should be killed.

Indeed, Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada predicted, that the royal society would come out with this position on this vital issue because of the one-sided nature of the six “experts” chosen to be on the panel.

“I wrote that the royal society’s report would be a pro-euthanasia propaganda piece two years ago,” said Schadenberg, who was reached in Ottawa on Thursday, where he attended a parliamentary committee on how to improve palliative care, so that dying people need not suffer.

Having said all this, it’s impossible not to feel sympathy for people like Gloria Taylor, the 63-year-old Kelowna, B.C., woman who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease and who is seeking to be allowed to be killed by her doctor at a time of her choice in the B.C. Supreme Court case.

But history shows us that for many people who live where euthanasia is legal, they are often killed against their will. What about their “choice?” They will never be able to make another choice ever again.

Canada’s courts and legislators have ruled on this issue repeatedly. In the Sue Rodriguez decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1993 that the prohibition against assisted suicide does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 1995, the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide recommended that euthanasia remain a criminal offence.

On April 21, 2010, Parliament overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384 — which sought to legalize physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada, by a vote of 228 to 59.

B.C.’s Supreme Court must take heed of the ample evidence of harm to individuals and society and the thoughtful and wise rulings of our parliamentarians and our highest court. It’s past time to let this issue die.

Licia Corbella is a columnist and the Calgary Herald editorial page editor

Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care offers great hope to Canadians.

2011-11-18T22:18:00.002-05:00

A great gift was given to Canada yesterday. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care was released yesterday in Ottawa. The report titled: Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians, focusses on improving palliative care for all Canadians, suicide prevention strategies and protecting people from elder abuse.

The Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care is an all-party committee that grew out of a common goal of identifying concrete ways to improve the care and protection for all Canadians when they are experiencing difficult circumstances.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition stated in our media release that we endorsed the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. Our legal counsel, Hugh Scher, stated:

"Implementation of the recommendations of this Parliamentary report should eliminate any further call for legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia in Canada by vastly improving care for every Canadian, especially those who are vulnerable."

At the press conference, in Ottawa, for the release of the report, Joe Comartin (NDP) - Windsor Riverside, Harold Albrecht (CPC) - Kitchener Conestoga, and Frank Valeriote (Lib) - Guelph, spoke on the different areas within the report.
Joe Comartin
Joe Comartin spoke on the palliative care recommendations in the report. he stated that only 16 - 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Palliative care services are a patch-work quilt with varying levels of care within every region. Even within Toronto there are regional disparities of access to palliative care.

Joe Comartin emphasized the need for * a new palliative care secretariet, * the importance of building a greater infrastructure of local palliative care services to enable people to receive care and support in their own communities, * the need to improve chronic care for people who live with pain and * he emphasized the need for greater flexibility in the provision of compassionate care benefits.

Harold Albrecht
Harold Albrecht spoke about the suicide prevention section within the report. He explained how suicide is almost always preventable but that the resources, information and support is simply not available in Canada. Canada does not have a national suicide prevention strategy, even though the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention has developed a national strategy for suicide prevention, the resources to implement the strategy have not been provided.

Harold Albrecht emphasized that * a coordinating body would be required to implement a National Suicide Prevention Strategy.

Frank Valeriote spoke on the recommendations related to elder abuse. He spoke about the fact that 4 - 10% of elders experience abuse and some recent studies are suggesting that the rate of elder abuse may be as high as 20%. Most elder abuse is carried out by care-givers, family members and friends. The reason elder abuse remains under-reported is the fact that the person is often dependent on the abuser.

Frank Valeriote emphasized the need for * an elder abuse awareness and prevention office, * an elder abuse prevention strategy that would focus on prevention and intervention.

Rene Ouimet from the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP) spoke next about the progress that is being made towards implementing a suicide prevention blueprint. She stated that CASP supports the recommendations in the report.

Dan Demers from the Canadian Cancer Society stated that they supported the recommendations within the report. He spoke about how some patients are still suffering needlessly. He emphasized that people, at the end of life, are vulnerable and must not be abandoned. He decried the fact that less than 30% of Canadians have access to excellent palliative care.

Jean Guy St. Gelais from the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse spoke next. He supported the need for an elder abuse prevention strategy and thanked the committee for the report.

Dr John Haggie
The final speaker was Dr John Haggie who is the President of the Canadian Medical Association. He stated that the improvement in palliative care required urgent attention. He spoke in favour of the emphasis on patient centred care that the report promotes. He suggested that fixing palliative care can be used as a model for transforming health care in Canada.

The media then asked a series of questions.

The first question concerned the fact that many of the areas that the report was concerned with were within provincial jurisdiction. Joe Comartin answered the question by emphasizing the importance of the report being implemented by all levels of government. He then emphasized how some of the recommendations would lead to significant cost savings. He stated that too many people were dying in acute care hospital settings. If there were palliative care placements available, the cost would be significantly less. He also stated that excellent pain management will provide significant savings for the economy. Frank Valeriote then emphasized the need to share information especially to serve the needs of minority communities.

The second question concerned the decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Dr Haggie, the President of the CMA stepped forward and stated that euthanasia is a complex issue but access to good palliative care would change the euthanasia debate. Dr Haggie then stated:
"requests for euthanasia usually reflect a failure to access adequate palliative care."
Dr. Haggie then stated that Canada needs a national palliative care strategy. We need to transform the medical system with best practises and we need innovation funds to improve care.

The next question concerned the national suicide prevention stragegy. Harold Albrecht spoke about the fact that CASP has developed a blueprint strategy and he stated that government leadership is needed. He then mentioned his private suicide prevention members bill that is before parliament.

It was then stated that the blueprint strategy that was developed by CASP has been implemented in other countries resulting in the lowering of suicide rates in their countries.

Harold Albrecht then mentioned how progress is already occuring. The #10 recommendation in the palliative care section of the report has already been inserted in the current government budget.

We would like to thank the 55 MP's who supported the Palliative and Compassionate Care committee. We would like to thank Michele Simson, who was the Liberal co-chair of the committee but was defeated in the last election. We would like to thank George for writing the report.

Anti-suicide laws have served him well

2011-11-18T16:46:00.000-05:00

John Coppard

By John Coppard, Times Colonist - November 18, 2011

Link to the article in the Times Colonist.

The editorial "Time to talk on right to die" asserts the time is now right to discuss this critically important topic (Nov. 16).

I submit that the time passed a little over a year ago, when parliamentarians overwhelmingly rejected private member's bill C-384 seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia by a vote of 228 to 59.

Representatives of all parties recognized the dire risks to public safety of giving physicians the legal right to take their patients' lives, and our health-care system, and even friends and relatives, the legal right to steer ill people toward suicide. Our democratic representatives correctly saw this as open to abuse, and bad public policy.

The "Carter case" now ongoing in Vancouver is an attempt to end-run Parliament.

As a person who is "grievously and irremediably ill" with Grade IV brain cancer, I would be affected should this case succeed. Two and a half years after being given a 20 per cent chance of surviving five years, I am doing very well on a medication approved by Health Canada only a year ago, within a week of my cancer coming back.

Had I been given the legal choice of assisted suicide when I first received my terrible prognosis, or when my cancer returned, when I felt hopeless, I don't know what I would have done.

Now I'm doing very well, thanks to medical advancements that are coming faster than at any time in our history. Our anti-suicide laws protected me and gave me a chance for a long and happy life, just as they were intended to do.

John Coppard
Victoria BC

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Endorses Recommendations of Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee

2011-11-17T22:16:00.000-05:00

TORONTO, Nov. 17, 2011 - CanadaNewsWire

The Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care released its report entitled: NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN: CARE OF VULNERABLE CANADIANS.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition endorses the recommendations made by the committee in respect of improved palliative and end-of-life care, suicide prevention strategies, and the prevention of elder abuse. EPC executive director Alex Schadenberg states:

The Parliamentary report represents a blueprint of proactive positive steps that will improve end-of-life care for all Canadians.

EPC-BC chair Dr. Will Johnston states:

I see elder abuse in my family medical practice. There is a clear need for action and the Parliamentary report sets out a blueprint for action.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher states:

Implementation of the recommendations of this Parliamentary report should eliminate any further call for legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia in Canada by vastly improving care for every Canadian, especially those who are vulnerable.

For further information:
Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director: 519-439-3348, info@epcc.ca
Dr. Will Johnston, EPC-BC Chair: 604-220-2042, willjohnston@shaw.ca
Hugh Scher, EPC Legal Counsel: 416-816-6115, hugh@sdlaw.ca

Link to the report.

Council of Canadians with Disabilities hopes court will rule no on killing

2011-11-17T21:47:00.000-05:00

Media Release - November 17, 2011

CCD hopes court will rule no on killing

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), a national organization of people with disabilities working for an accessible and inclusive Canada, is alarmed by the case, Carter v. Attorney General of Canada, which is a constitutional challenge to Canadian law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. Legalized assisted suicide is a recipe for lethal abuse.

In 2010, the House of Commons voted (228 to 59) against legalizing assisted suicide, striking down Bill C-384, which would have removed Criminal Code provisions against assisted suicide. CCD applauded the defeat of Bill C-384 and believes nothing in the intervening time has occurred that necessitates the overturning of a law designed to protect Canadians from being killed. With their vote on C-384, our elected representatives said no to killing; we urge Canadian judges also to say no to killing.

Dr. van der Wal of Holland testified before the Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that people who had not made an explicit request for an assisted suicide nevertheless were being killed under the auspices of that country’s assisted suicide provisions.

Through personal experiences, people with disabilities know that we are often perceived to be suffering pain and enduring lives that are not worth living. Such misconceptions can lead to unwanted assistance in dying. Many of us with disabilities want the protection afforded by the Criminal Code’s prohibition against assisted suicide to continue.

The assisted suicide debate is a conflict between some individuals’ desires for an extreme form of personal autonomy—assistance in executing their own death at a time of their own choosing—and other individuals’ desires to prevent the lethal abuse of people, particularly those who are socially devalued, such as people with disabilities. One unwanted death due to misconceptions about quality of life is too many.

An important first step to preventing lethal abuse of our human right to life is preservation of the Criminal Code’s prohibitions against assisted suicide. Canada’s legislators got this question right in 2010. We hope that the court, when deciding the Carter case, pays heed to the decision taken by Canada’s Members of Parliament on the question in 2010.

-30-

For more information contact:
Rhonda Wiebe, Co-chair, CCD Ending of Life Ethics Committee, Cell: 204-952-1514
Dean Richert, Co-chair, CCD Ending of Life Ethics Committee, Cell: 204-951-6273
Jim Derksen, Member, CCD Ending of Life Ethics Committee, Tel: 204-786-7937
Laurie Beachell, CCD National Coordinator, Tel: 204-947-0303

Vivre dans la Dignité/ Living with Dignity's Media Release on the Quebec Consultation

2011-11-16T15:00:00.002-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Montreal, November 16, 2011
Quebecers have overwhelmingly told the provincial government to respect existing laws banning euthanasia and focus instead on providing high quality palliative care, a study of submissions to the Special Commission on Dying with Dignity shows clearly.

“The numbers are black and white. In the presentations to the Commission there was 99 per cent agreement that palliative care is the dignified choice Quebecers want available at the end of life.

At the same time, 60 per cent of the submissions opposed any opening for euthanasia. The government’s democratic direction should be clear,” said Linda Couture, director of the nonpartisan, grass roots group, Living With Dignity.

Couture said an exhaustive Living with Dignity independent analysis of the 427 oral presentations and written submissions to the Commission, shows a mere two per cent of the submissions support assisted suicide.

Four per cent of those who made submissions did not have a clear position.

Only about a third of those who submitted to the commission were either somewhat or strongly in favor of euthanasia, Couture said: “This is a far cry from the inflated survey numbers often used in the media by advocates for legalizing or decriminalizing euthanasia in Quebec.”

A further analysis of the content of the submissions of those who apparently favored euthanasia showed significant confusion between directly taking a patient’s life – outlawed under the Criminal Code – and ceasing futile treatment, which is universally acknowledged as ethical and proper.

“Many of those who believe they support euthanasia really oppose overzealous treatment, that is disproportionate measures used to prolong the life of the terminally ill person when there is no realistic hope for improvement in his or her condition” says Dr André Bourque, president of LWD.

“The law already makes a very clear distinction between euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment. Palliative care rejects disproportionate treatment and focuses on comfort care for the person at the end of life. However, we need an extensive awareness campaign in order to overcome the current confusion.

”Dr Bourque says the statistical breakdown of the submissions gives the Commission members clear direction on how Quebecers want to deal with end of life issues.

“This was not an interest-group survey. It was the National Assembly’s own public consultation. Quebecers have spoken. A clear majority told the politicians they want access to high quality palliative care, NOT euthanasia. MNAs must look beyond their own ideological preferences, heed the citizens, and do their duty,” said Dr Bourque.

Linda Couture noted that with all-but unanimous support for increased palliative care, it is crucial for members of the all-party special Commission to build social solidarity by focusing on what unites Quebecers rather than what divides the majority from a minority pressing for legalization or decriminalizing of euthanasia.

Commission members themselves were justifiably proud of the hearing process having set a record for participation in a National Assembly public consultation. If so many Quebecers across the province took the time to express their will, their marching orders to the government must be respected.

“By honoring the voices of those who spoke at the Commission hearings, the members can produce a final report and make recommendations that will build solidarity among Quebecers on deeply difficult and complex issues of end of life care. Let’s give life to what unites us,” said palliative care physician Dr Patrick Vinay, vice –president of Living with Dignity,

For results analysis www.vivredignite.com/en/info_media.html
For interviews with spokespersons
Contact: Linda Couture, (514) 639-6814 or (514) 262-5183 info@vivredignite.com

Legalizing Assisted Suicide 'a recipe for elder abuse,'

2011-11-14T17:20:00.000-05:00

John Coppard

The Vancouver Province published a thorough article by Sean Sullivan today about the protest that was organized by EPC-BC on the steps of the court house in Vancouver. The article is titled: Legalizing Assisted Suicide 'a recipe for elder abuse.' says protesters.

The article also featured John Coppard, who was diagnosed with brain cancer two years ago. Coppard contacted us with his story. The following is a reprint of the article:

Legalized Assisted Suicide 'a recipe for elder abuse,' says protesters

Protesters opposed to changes in Canada’s suicide law gathered in front of the Vancouver Law Courts Monday morning, warning that legalizing assisted suicide would open the floodgates for elder abuse.

A court challenge launched in B.C. Supreme Court has the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Gloria Taylor, a 63-year-old woman suffering from ALS, challenging Canada’s laws that forbid doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

Opponents, however, argue that physician-assisted suicides will see the medical system steer patients toward suicide and allow greedy children intent on inheriting their parents wealth will force them into choosing death.

“In the messy real world that I work in as a family physician, I have no illusions but that improper inducement to end their lives prematurely would be given to a lot of the elderly,” Dr. Will Johnston said.

“We need a strong law that prevents people urging or facilitating others to commit suicide.”

Speaking in his experience as a doctor who provides capability assessments on “frail, elderly people,” Johnston said it’s typical to see victims who have been induced to do things that are completely against their self-interest. Gutting the law against assisted suicide will do more harm than good, he said.

“Sadly, children are the worst abusers of the elderly. We have a national problem with suicide and a natural problem with elder abuse.

“And here we have a case that would undercut our efforts to constrain both of those problems.”
About 70 people, holding signs with messages such as “Assisted suicide a recipe for elder abuse,” braved the brisk, fall wind to stand on the steps of the Law Courts Monday.

Among them was John Coppard, 45, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, in 2009. A new medication helped him recover, though he said that at his “lowest points,” he may have chosen assisted suicide had it been offered to him.

“I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the law that disallowed assisted suicide,” Coppard said. “The illnesses people are talking about inside (the court) are not death sentences any more.

“People (diagnosed with a terminal illness) can live for decades,” he said.

Afghanistan veteran with brain cancer urges Canadians to support laws against assisted suicide

2011-11-14T14:20:00.000-05:00

Afghanistan veteran with brain cancer urges Canadians to support laws against assisted suicide.

Nov. 14 – At the Vancouver Law Courts this morning, a trial begins that may result in the legalization of assisted suicide. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of B.C., an intervener in the case, is staging a demonstration to help inform Canadians about what such laws will mean for individuals.

Media are invited to attend today’s demonstration at the corner of Nelson and Hornby, from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. Onsite, EPCBC offers people who can explain why legalized assisted suicide would be bad for Canadians.

Afghanistan and Bosnia vet John Coppard, 45, is one of those people. Diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer two years ago, a Glioblastoma Multiforme, the Victoria resident became depressed when he realized his career was over, he’d probably never be a father or a grandfather, and his chance of surviving even five years was just 20 per cent.

If assisted suicide had been legal at the time, he believes he may have considered killing himself. But since then his condition has stabilized on a newly-approved medication. He even bought a sailboat.

“For those of us living with life threatening conditions, the system as it is offers us incredible hope,” Coppard said. “New therapies are discovered all the time. Everyone knows someone who was offered a terrible prognosis that turned out to be wrong. Doctors work hard to offer us the best chance at a long life and sometimes, recovery. I know mine are”

Assisted suicide, he said, undermines Canadians’ relationship with care providers.

“When you’re diagnosed with something like brain cancer or ALS, your treatments are very complex. You put a lot of trust in your doctors, your health care system and those closest to you to steer you through your illness. In my case I trust them completely. If assisted suicide is on the table, however, who will I be able to trust?”

“I don't want any heroics. I'll go when it's time for me to go. But not when my medical system thinks it's too expensive to keep me alive, or when my doctor thinks I'm too much work.”

EPC BC’s spokespeople will be available for comment throughout the four-week trial.

Media contacts:

Cancer patient John Coppard 250-508-3446

Will Johnston, MD, president of EPCBC www.epcbc.ca, willjohnston@shaw.ca 604-220-2042

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of EPC Canada www.epcc.ca, info@epcc.ca 519-851-1434

Royal Society of Canada one - sided euthanasia report to be released tomorrow.

2011-11-14T13:17:00.003-05:00

EPC was shocked in October 2009 when the Royal Society of Canada announced that they had established an "expert panel on end-of-life decision making" that appeared to be made up of advocates from the euthanasia lobby.

Jocelyn Downie

When reading the media release, it appeared that this "expert panel" was assembled by long-time euthanasia advocate Jocelyn Downie. When we further investigated the panel members it was clear that when this report would be a pro-euthanasia propaganda report.

When the Royal Society of Canada announced the formation of this "expert panel", EPC suggested that they should have at least appointed members who supported euthanasia and members who opposed euthanasia and allow them to offer two equal perspectives. But this did not happen. Wesley Smith, a leading American bioethicist stated that the Royal Society panel had "stacked the deck".

Tomorrow, the Royal Society of Canada "expert panel" on end-of-life decision making will release its report.

We expect that it will suggest - for the most part - that all is fine and good with euthanasia in jurisdictions where it is legal, that there is more abuse in jurisdictions where euthanasia is illegal, that concerns about death without request or consent or the euthanasia of infants with disabilities or euthanasia of people with dementia are rare and overblown and that Canada, and other nations, should go ahead and legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and treat it like a form of medical treatment.

If I am accurate, it is because it is what I expected from the beginning. Simply read the EPC November 2009 newsletter.

Jocelyn Downie, who has written a book to promote the legalization of euthanasia in Canada, who has stated in speaking engagements that she has designed the "perfect law" for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, recently sent this letter to the Deans of Medicine across Canada stating:

"I am working (pro bono) on the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association challenge to the Criminal Code prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada."

The BCCLA Carter case, is currently being heard in the BC courts to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

If this report is similar to the Margaret Battin report from a few years ago, it will be designed to prove its hypothesis, and it will miss, ignore or simply write off as a non-issue any study or legitimate concern that disproves their hypothesis.

The most recent media release states that: "the Royal Society does not have an opinion on these matters." If this report were a thorough, independent and honest examination of the facts, then the Royal Society would be happy to place their seal of approval on it.

In other words, this report represents the long-held opinion of its key members.

I wonder how the "expert panel" will write off the study published last year that stated that 32% of the euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were without explicit request or consent?

What about the study published last year that stated that only 52.8% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium are reported?

What about the study by the pro-euthanasia Dutch Oncologist Marije van der Lee that was published in 2005 that showed that depressed people were 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia?

How will they discount the disability perspective? Consider the article by Marilyn Golden titled: Killing us Softly.

I am interested to read the verbal gymnastics in this report.