Belgian lecturer blames the euthanasia law for the death of his depressed mother

For Immediate Release 

Montreal, September 12, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ 

Lieve De Troyer

Dr. Tom Mortier (PhD) lecturer of chemistry at University College Leuven in Belgium, critiqued the Belgian euthanasia law at a press conference in Montreal. On April 20, 2012, he learned from the hospital without prior notice that his mother at the age of 64 was euthanized the previous day by a lethal injection at the Hospital of the Free University of Brussels. His mother did not suffer an incurable disease like cancer or a neurodegenerative disease such as Lou Gehrig's disease. She suffered from chronic depression. The euthanasia death was carried out by an oncologist on the recommendation of a single psychiatrist. Other psychiatrists did not concur with the poor prognosis of her condition or agreed to her request. The family has been overwhelmed by the death. It should be noted that Mrs. Lieve De Troyer, was a retired teacher who loved to travel. She had experienced significant losses in the past: she was widowed after the suicide of her husband, and later suffered a breakup in a long-term relationship that precipitated again her depression.

Dr. Paul Saba

Dr. Tom Mortier and his family are not the only victims of a law that provides access to euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses, but also to those affected by depression, loss of memory, and anticipated diseases. Currently before the Belgian Senate, a law is being proposed to extend euthanasia to disabled children and those losing their autonomy. Dr. Paul Saba, of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice denounced not only the countries and states in the United States who practice euthanasia, but also the Quebec government which is currently promoting Bill 52 which has many similarities with Belgian law. "All societies that allow euthanasia promote death and safeguards consistently fail. International studies show that informed consent is not always respected, reporting mechanisms are being ignored and patients with mental health problems do not receive psychiatric treatment that they need. "In fact, according to Dr. Paul Saba, Quebec is currently promoting euthanasia as a cheap alternative to palliative care which is currently accessible to only about 20% of the population. Unfortunately, 80% of patients who need palliative care do not have the strength and stamina to demand additional investments that would allow them to finish their lives without suffering and with dignity.

SOURCE Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice

Link to the Coalition of physicians for Social Justice.

Links to other related articles:

Depressed Belgian woman dies by euthanasia.

Quebec's euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.

The Lure of Euthanasia in Quebec

This article is based on the opinion article written by Dr Guy O'Reilly, who practiced family medicine from 1968 - 2007 in Maniwaki. The original article was published on September 9, 2013, by La Presse and was "google translated" to English. 

O'Reilly offers insight into the culture of the euthanasia debate and Bill 52 in Quebec.

By Alex Schadenberg

In his article, O'Reilly examines the euthanasia debate based on cultural symptoms that he suggests, the Quebec government is attempting to solve by legalizing euthanasia. He compares the societal response to the issues in our environment to the societal response to the issues of comfort, suffering and dying.

In his first paragraph O'Reilly suggests that euthanasia is a response to the fear that people have in relation to suffering or not being adequately cared for. He compares this problem to the problem of aggressive treatment and concludes that doctors respond with aggressive and often futile treatment for the dying for same reason that euthanasia is offered. O'Reilly states:

It is this same fear that too often keeps the health care system and health care for the dying. These fears can be abandoned except when the end-of-life (palliative care) are absent or inadequate ... With this fear, we try to push the dead as far as possible by aggressive therapy. In other words, euthanasia and aggressive treatment have a common cause and legalizing euthanasia will not solve the problem of aggressive therapy.

O'Reilly then explains how legalizing euthanasia increases the demand for euthanasia. He suggests that the Belgium experience with euthanasia has led to: 

"a smooth slide toward increasing openness to euthanasia."

He looks at euthanasia and suggests that it offers an "illusion of choice." He states:

Naively, we expect to freely decide our choice of end of life. We do not die alone, but in a society that influences our choices, especially in extreme fatigue and weakness. ... The dying will be receptive to the entourage and hear the nonverbal invitation to reflect on the possibility of euthanasia. In the context of suffering and fragility, can we actually speak of free choice? The choice of dying will be motivated primarily by some subtle and environment pressure and there will be more and more requests for euthanasia.

O'Reilly looks at the concept of Dignity which seems to drive the euthanasia debate. He writes:

The protagonists of euthanasia are armed with arguments that do not hold up, they invoke the loss of dignity felt by the dying invoked as a reason for euthanasia. It is a false argument, because dignity is intrinsic to the human being and beyond the subjective dignity. ... In my experience with end-of-life, I have witnessed unexpected reversals in the dying persons look, attitude and behavior. A depressed person, desperate, bedridden with incontinence can regain confidence in life through consistency of care, given with compassion, generosity and love by dedicated staff. ... with good medication monitoring by both the nursing and physician and especially an open attitude in respect of silence and listening.

O'Reilly suggests that the euthanasia debate is - A Decoy or an illusion. He writes:

To respond to a complex and heartbreaking situation at the end of life, euthanasia offers a simple and effective solution, but it is an illusion. ... Our unhealthy relationship with suffering and death is involved. We must have the courage to ask to correct the problem by moving to a much more constructive societal project than euthanasia. 

O'Reilly concludes: 

Compliance with the prohibition of killing in force for centuries in different cultures is part of a rich heritage that we must bequeath to future generations and to do otherwise would be a betrayal and loss of society.

Links to other similar articles:
- Quebec's euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is based on the Belgium euthanasia law.
- Be Careful with Euthanasia.
- Why the Quebec government must reject Bill 52.
- Bill 52 is bad medicine for Quebecers with disabilities.
- Quebec Euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is a very dangerous bill.

If spoon feeding is no longer a right, I will be afraid for my life.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Introduction: Today, I received an email from a person with disabilities concerning the spoon feeding case in British Columbia. This letter explains the problem with granting the family the right to withdraw spoon feeding from a person who is considered incompetent.   Alex Schadenberg

From the email: 

In regards to the spoon feeding case.

I find this to be quite terrifying. 

When I needed life saving care my "family" did not want me to receive it, my friend fought for me and I lived. When I was released from the hospital my "family" fought to have me put in a nursing home, once again my friend fought for me. For over a year she fought for me while caring for me 24/7 part of that care was spoon feeding. We had to leave our home and ended up sleeping on the streets and then a homeless shelter and then a motel until we found an accessible apartment.

If this family wins and spoon feeding is no longer a right, I am afraid, Alex I am afraid for my life.

My disability was caused by childhood abuse and I have spent over 10 years looking over my shoulder and fleeing from a family who keeps finding me. I live in fear, I live with a disability and I live with depression but I have survived, I have survived an unimaginable life when no one thought I would and now I am left wondering what for?

The push for assisted suicide and now the push to withhold spoon feeding has left me terrified and feeling hopeless. I cannot afford to flee my home again and I do not want to die because I cannot lift a spoon to my mouth.

Links to similar articles:

• Elder abuse and death by dehydration.
• Mild stroke led to mother's forced death by dehydration.
• Another personal story of death by dehydration.

Your LIfe Counts: International Suicide Prevention Day

A Call to Action...
Your Life Counts Needs You!

World Suicide Day 10th September 2013

We are asking you, our supporters today to:

- visit the Help Save a Life page
- mobilize your family/friends social networks to support us in our goal
- give generously

Talking points that you can Tweet and post on Facebook:

- 3,600 Canadians die by suicide every year

- 40,000 die by suicide every year in United States

- 100 suicide deaths a day in North America

- for every suicide death there are an estimated 20 to 25 attempts

- 1 suicide is 1 too many

- 400,000 family members are devastated each year, this statistic does not include co-workers, school mates and friends

Please, don't walk on the other side of the road; we are asking for your help. Not everyone can walk the front lines, but your support will make a difference.

You can do something more to help right now.

Your donation of any amount to YLC will help rescue the vulnerable, helping us to help them find their reason to live. YLC has rescued hundreds of individuals from suicide since 2000, operating often on fumes. As in our name Your Life Counts, your dollar counts, every moment counts.

Your donation now will help YLC step forward, strengthening our capacity to rescue more lives.

YLC relies 100% on the donations received to continue helping those at risk or those affected by suicide 24/7. Find out ways you can help now here.

Below are some sample tweets and posts. Help yourself and come up with your own.

Thank you!

115 suicide deaths per day in North America is unacceptable; Help Save a Life; World
Suicide Prevention Day and @YourLifeCounts Donate Now: http://www.yourlifecounts.org/help-save-a-life  Pls RT

One suicide is too many. Help save a life: Donate Now
http://www.yourlifecounts.org/help-save-a-life Pls RT

Your Life Counts launches Suicide Prevention Program on Suicide Prevention Day.

For Immediate Release 

September 10, 2013

MEDIA CONTACT: Rory Butler: 905-321-2771 media@yourlifecounts.org

Your Life Counts, A Leading Suicide Prevention Charity, Kicks-Off Online Fundraiser In Honour Of Suicide Prevention Day

September 10, is International Suicide Prevention Day. Your Life Counts (YLC) saves dozens of lives and provides ongoing support to families and communities each year. Today YLC launches a new online fundraiser, calling on supporters to “Help YLC Save a Life Today!” by donating online at: www.supportylc.com.

YLC receives no government funding and relies 100 per cent on donations to continue its invaluable work. The goal is to raise $100,000.00 to support the charity’s 24/7 life-saving outreach and support for those at risk or affected by suicide. This month long online fundraiser, September 10 – October 8, 2013, will raise much needed funds and awareness of the charity and its work at the front lines of suicide prevention.

“From my own experience I know lives can be saved from suicide,” says Rory Butler, suicide survivor, prevention advocate and founder of YLC. “Shockingly every year 3,600 Canadians and over 35,000 Americans are lost to suicide – that’s more than 100 people per day. It is probably the most preventable of all deaths. I can imagine no more important cause to dedicate my life to, than to attempt to rescue those who are at risk. That is what inspired me to found Your Life Counts."

YLC is a critical resource, for youth and families struggling with overwhelming life situations that can lead to suicide. Through online lifeline services and call response centres. YLC is passionate about creating and promoting leading edge, life-affirming strategies to meet the needs of individuals, including, ongoing support, education, research, empowerment, training and advocacy through its resources, alliances, and programs worldwide. The charity’s unique outreach tool the “Online Lifeline” and extensive life affirming resources provided have saved countless lives since 2000.

Today YLC is a growing network of full-time and part-time volunteers from all walks of life around the world dedicated to rescuing lives from suicide, reconnecting people with hope and helping them to embrace their reasons to live. A world leading brain trust of experts is on hand through the YLC Advisory Board. YLC receives no government funding to support its life-saving work. YLC relies completely on every dollar donated.

Together with its partners and supporters, YLC is saving lives!

To find out more about YLC visit www.yourlifecounts.org. 
Follow us on Twitter @yourlifecounts and Facebook at facebook.com/yourlifecounts. 
To donate to YLC today visit www.supportylc.com .

Elder Abuse: A "hidden national scandal" in the UK

The following report from the UK Guardian makes it clear that we're only looking at the tip of the iceberg. The oblique reference at the close to 'recent scandals involving the maltreatment of the elderly in care homes and NHS hospitals' is essentially about killing as a form of Elder Abuse. 

After reading this article, it is amazing that people can suggest that euthanasia will not be abused, or that euthanasia will be voluntary. 

Hundreds of thousands of elderly people were abused last year.

By Daniel Boffey - Policy Editor, The Observer - September 8, 2013

As many as 370,000 older people have been abused in their own homes by a carer, relative or friend in the last year, according to figures, exposing what has been described as a "hidden national scandal".

The number aged over 65 who are physically, psychologically or financially persecuted at home every year is likely to reach almost half a million by the end of the decade.

Elderly men and women across the country, from all walks of life, are routinely ill-treated, yet former health minister Paul Burstow warns that their plight is often ignored or dismissed.

The scale of the abuse, and its rapid growth, has prompted Burstow, who uncovered the figures, to demand a series of radical changes in the law to aid the detection and punishment of those misusing their positions.

As it stands, social services are constrained in their ability to gain access to the elderly in their own homes when a carer is proving an obstacle, even where abuse is suspected. There is also no criminal charge of neglect available against those mistreating a vulnerable and older person who is judged to be of sound mind.

Burstow, a Liberal Democrat MP, told the Observer that elderly people looked after in their homes enjoyed few legal protections and were all too often condemned to living their last years in misery, "out of sight and out of mind". He said: 

"This is a hidden national scandal. The thing that worries me is what this says about our society."

Further reading:

- Assisted suicide arrest in the UK reminds us of assisted suicide is prohibited.

- The demise of the Liverpool Pathway and euthanasia by dehydration.

- British Columbia court to hear spoon feeding case.

- The dangerous 'help' of assisted suicide.

Lawsuit would keep assisted suicide illegal in Montana.

The following letter was written by Bradley Williams, the president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and published in the Missoulian on September 6, 2013

I am the president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. Robert Minto’s (Aug. 29) letter regarding our lawsuit against the Board of Medical Examiners was ill-informed. First, assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. Second, the goal of our lawsuit is to keep it that way.

Our reasons for opposing legalization include: it will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives; it will create new paths of elder abuse; and it will empower government health plans and other insurers to offer suicide as a “treatment” in lieu of desired traditional treatments (to cure, to improve the quality of life and/or to extend life). See: http://bit.ly/14ZUJfz.

Minto’s letter implies that assisted suicide is legal under the Baxter decision. That decision, however, merely gives a potential defense to a homicide charge.

Bills to legalize assisted suicide have been defeated in the past two legislative sessions. In 2013, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide, Senate Bill 220, did not even get out of committee. In 2011, a similar bill, SB167, also died in committee.

During a hearing on SB167, the sponsor Sen. Anders Blewett made statements on the record conceding that assisted suicide was not legal then, and with the failure of the above bills, it’s not legal now. For example, he said: “under the current law ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.” Dr. Stephen Speckart, a plaintiff in Baxter, made a similar statement, as follows: “most physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision.”

To view transcript excerpts, please go to http://bit.ly/15EOppu.

With our lawsuit to prevent legalization, we are incurring attorneys fees and other expenses. 

To donate, please go here: www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/donate.html.

Bradley D. Williams, president, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, Hamilton

Hiding illegal assisted suicides

This article was written by Wesley Smith and published on Sept 6, 2013 on his blog.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Compassion and Choices–once known by the more accurate name Hemlock Society–is in the well paid, but non profit business, of promoting assisted suicide. It often tries to put a more respectable veneer over their raison d’être–but legalizing and normalizing doctor-prescribed death is the core agenda of the organization.

Cut to California’s AB 62 that would add to current law requiring reporting of deaths caused by medical “gross negligence” to proper authorities, a requirement to report deaths caused by overdose of federally controlled substances–the drugs most commonly used in assisted suicide. From the legislation.

When a coroner receives information that is based on findings that were reached by, or documented and approved by, a pathologist indicating that the cause of death is due to a Schedule II, III, or IV drug, a report shall be filed with the information regarding the death of the decedent, including whether the decedent was undergoing treatment for a terminal illness or chronic condition, if known, shall be provided by the coroner to the Medical Board of California. 

Note: Reported medical professionals under the section are entitled to strong procedural protections–which would specifically apply in such cases.

But according to C & C, such reporting will discourage doctors from prescribing properly for pain. From its email “Action Alert:”

SB 62 requires a coroner to file a report with the Medical Board of California if certain prescription drugs are a contributing factor in a death. While we support efforts to restrict the illegal use of prescription drugs, there must be a thoughtful balance so that these pain medications are available and accessible for people who need them to relieve their pain and suffering… 

Under SB 62, physicians would hesitate to prescribe drugs for fear of being investigated by the Medical Board, even when the medical care is appropriate. Such a chilling effect on medical professionals will keep patients from getting appropriate pain management. Terminally ill patients could die in agony if they are denied adequate pain medication.

Baloney. C & C is worried that the reporting requirement could bring surreptitious assisted suicides to light. Not that the group approves of misprescribing. But protecting suicide matters most.

In this regard, it is worth recalling that the leaders of C & C have vigorously opposed previous state and federal bills that explicitly made aggressive pain control a protected medical act, but which also banned assisted suicide. And in that dichotomy, we see C & C’s real assisted suicide-protecting agenda.

Coronation Street must handle assisted suicide story with great sensitivity.

This article was written by Peter Saunders and published on his blog on Sept 7, 2013.

Peter Saunders

Hayley

By Dr Peter Saunders, the campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance.

The BBC has reported this week that the ITV Soap ‘Coronation Street’ is to run a story on assisted suicide centred on the character Hayley Cropper.

Hayley, the first transgender character in a British soap, has been diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer and the show has revealed that as her health deteriorates she will decide she wants to take her own life.

Cancer of the pancreas is not uncommon:  7,065 people in England and Wales died from the disease in 2010.

Quebec's euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is based on the Belgian euthanasia law, which is not safe.

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Quebec is currently debating a medical model to decriminalize euthanasia. 

Bill 52, the Quebec euthanasia bill, is based on the Belgian euthanasia law. 

Sign the petition: Québec's euthanasia Bill 52 is not safe.

The following information is on data from several studies concerning the Belgian euthanasia law.

Assisted deaths without request or consent. 

A study that was published in the (CMAJ June, 2010) concluded that 32% of euthanasia deaths in the Flemish region of Belgium are done without explicit request. A similar study that was published in the (CMAJ June, 2010) concluded that 45% of euthanasia deaths involving nurses in Belgium were done without explicit request. 

Many people claim that the Belgian euthanasia law is controlled and yet the data indicates that many euthanasia deaths are never reported.

Belgian nurses involvement in euthanasia.

The Belgian euthanasia law specifically limits the act of euthanasia to physicians. The study that was published in the (CMAJ June, 2010) found that when nurses were involved with the euthanasia death the lethal dose was injected by the nurse 12% of the time. The study indicated that in 12 cases the doctor was not present at the time of injection and twice, the nurse did not consult the physician. All of these acts are technically illegal in Belgium.

There has never been an attempted prosecution for abuses of the Belgian euthanasia law.

Under-reporting of euthanasia. 

A study that was published in the (BMJ Oct 2010) concluded that euthanasia deaths are significantly under-reported in the Flemish region of Belgium. The study found that only 52.8% of euthanasia deaths in the Flemish region of Belgium were reported. 

Belgian government statistics indicate that the number of reported assisted deaths increased by 25% from 1133 in 2011 to 1432 in 2012, representing 2% of all deaths in Belgium. The number of reported assisted deaths in 2010 was 954. It is important to note that these statistics do not include the unreported assisted deaths.

Data indicates that euthanasia is under-reported and done without request. This proves that the actual practice of euthanasia is not accurately represented in the Belgium government reports. 

Euthanasia requests are rarely refused.

A study that was published in November 2011 found that only 5% of euthanasia deaths are refused in Belgium, compared to a 12% refusal rate in the Netherlands. The study stated that: "Unfortunately we have no information on the reasons why the attending physicians from our study refused to grant requests."

Expansion of criteria for euthanasia. 

Recent reports political debate in Belgium and media reports concern the expansion of euthanasia to include teenagers, infants and children with disabilities and people with Alzheimer’s and Dementia. The main reason that for expanding the criteria for euthanasia in Belgium is that doctors are breaking the law, so the law needs to be changed.

Organ Donation and Euthanasia.

Euthanasia is also being promoted as a good act in Belgium within the concept of euthanasia and organ transplant. Organ donation creates a new purpose to steer people who have healthy organs but also have a life threatening or chronic condition toward death by organ transplant. 

The euthanasia lobby continues to wave the flags of choice and autonomy when at the same time the practice of euthanasia in Belgium is under-reported, is being done without request, is being done to people who cannot consent (Alzheimer/Dementia) and being done by pressuring people with healthy organs to give the “gift of life”. 


Euthanasia is out-of-control.

This January it was reported that Belgian identical twins, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, were euthanized because they feared becoming blind.

In February it was reported that a woman with Anorexia Nervosa died by euthanasia.

Also in February, Tom Mortier wrote an article about the euthanasia death of his depressed mother in April 2012. Mortier stated:

The death of my mother has triggered a lot of questions. How is it possible that people can be euthanised in Belgium without close family or friends being contacted? Why does my country give medical doctors the exclusive power to decide over life and death? ... What are the criteria to decide what “unbearable suffering” is? Can we rely on such a judgment for a mentally ill person?

Quebec euthanasia bill is not safe.

The Belgian people should be very concerned that those who are incompetent and/or depressed are dying by euthanasia and very few requests for euthanasia are rejected.

The government of Quebec will be debating Bill 52, a bill that will legalize euthanasia as a form of medical treatment. Bill 52 is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.

The Quebec government needs to reject Bill 52, the Quebec government bill to legalize euthanasia that is based on the Belgian euthanasia law. Bill 52 is dangerous and it is bad medicine for people with disabilities.

Learn more about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Belgium and the Netherlands by ordering the book Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Exposing Vulnerable People examines the data from recent studies and publishes the facts that the media is not willing to publish and that the other side ignores.

This blog does not publish anonymous or attacking comments!

In the past few weeks I have received many comments from people who did not include their name with their comment. They left an anonymous comment. 

A few years ago, I decided that I would not publish comments from people who left there name as Anonymous and I would not publish comments attacking others.

I simply will not publish an anonymous or an attacking comment.

Therefore if you want your comment published on this blog, you must post your name with the comment and you must not attack others.

Alex Schadenberg

Belgium Violated Rights of Highly Dependent Disabled People

The Equal Rights Trust (ERT) have reported that Belgium is in violation of the rights of highly dependent people with disabilities.

Considering the fact that Belgium allows euthanasia for people with disabilities who are not terminally ill but living with chronic conditions, and Belgium is not encouraging euthanasia/organ donation for people with disabilities, the Belgian people should be concerned that people with disabilities are dying by euthanasia based on social attitudes and inequality. Consider the story of the Belgian twins who died by euthanasia out of fear of becoming blind.

The following article was originally published by the Equal Rights Trust.

On 29 July 2013, the decision of the European Committee on Social Rights in International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v Belgium was made public. The Committee, in its decision dated 18 March 2013, held that Belgium’s inadequate provision of care and accommodation for highly dependent persons with disabilities amounted to a violation of their right to benefit from social welfare services (Article 14) and their right to non-discrimination (Article E) under the revised European Social Charter of 1996.

The collective complaint was brought by FIDH on behalf of highly dependent adults with disabilities “the persons concerned” and their families against the Belgian state, due to a concern about a “severe shortage” of accommodation for the persons concerned and its impact on them and their families. FIDH alleged that the Respondent’s failure to ensure sufficient accommodation amounted to: a failure to provide effective access to social and medical assistance, social services and housing; a violation of the right to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community; a lack of social, legal and economic protection against poverty and social exclusion; and discrimination.

The Respondent denied any breach of the Charter. It pointed out that its federal structure meant policies often originate at a regional or community level. The Respondent also argued that it had taken significant steps including increasing the budget for provision of community services for persons with disabilities and that, in the current economic climate, it would not be reasonable to expect it to spend more in this area. It stated that persons with the severest disabilities are better subsidised than others and that its extremely varied range of social services options on offer meant it was in conformity with its obligation to progressively realise Charter rights.

The Committee held that the Respondent was responsible under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for any failures which arose as a result of delegating its Charter responsibilities to a local level. It held that:

Access of persons with disabilities to social welfare services can only be regarded as “equal and effective” for the purpose of Article 14(1) if the state offers: “varied and multiple methods of care for these people by the community and if the number and quality of the social welfare services actually provided correspond as closely as possible to the specific, practical, individual needs of the persons concerned”. 

Article 19 of the CRPD – which “reflects existing trends in comparative European law in the sphere of disability policies” – recognises the right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community “with choices equal to others” and with social services available to them “on an equal basis and (...) responsive to their needs”.

Rejecting the Respondent’s argument that it had done enough to show it was progressively realising the rights of the persons concerned, the Committee found that the Respondent had not achieved enough in the time examined. It held that the shortage and the resulting waiting lists and lack of care amounted to a breach of the Charter rights of the persons concerned as well as a breach of the rights of their families under Article 16.

The Committee also found that the Respondent’s failures amounted to discrimination in violation of Article E of the charter. It held:

“Disability” is a protected characteristic under “other status” in Article E; 

Article E obliges states “when taking measures in the social services field, to take account of the situation of highly dependent adults with disabilities so as to guarantee their effective access to the benefits of public policy on an equal footing with all other persons, even if that entails that persons with severe disabilities, on account of their own specific vulnerability, will be treated more favourably than others”. In order to determine whether there was discrimination, the persons concerned were to be compared to both the general population and also other persons with disabilities; 

As the Respondent was not creating sufficient accommodation facilities to prevent the exclusion of many of the persons concerned from this form of social welfare service appropriate to their specific, tangible needs, the Respondent had, amongst other things, violated Article E taken in conjunction with Article 14(1);

The lack of accommodation causes many families to live in insecure circumstances. These families are vulnerable groups and the Respondent’s failure also amounted to a breach of Article E taken in conjunction with Article 16.

The Committee did not find violations in relation to the other claims made by FIDH.

ERT welcomes the strong position the Committee has taken in relation to the positive obligations of the state in the provision of social services to particularly vulnerable groups such as the highly dependent persons with disabilities in this case.

Read the Equal Rights Trust case summary click here
Read the Committee’s decision click here

Link to previous articles:
- Disabled euthanasia organ donors.
- Requests for euthanasia in Belgium are rarely refused.
- Belgian Twins euthanized out of fear of blindness.

POLST: What is it and why should you oppose it?

By Julie Grimstad

The POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form is a standard document that, when signed by a designated healthcare professional, dictates whether to withhold or administer certain forms of medical treatment and/or care. POLST is known by different acronyms in various states (MOST, MOLST, POST, etc.). 

A brightly colored form that is very visible in a patient's medical chart, POLST has boxes to check off indicating that a patient does or does not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), antibiotics, nutrition and hydration, etc. Trained "facilitators"—usually not physicians—discuss treatment options with patients. After filling out the form with a patient, the facilitator presents it to be signed by a designated healthcare professional—someone who may never have seen or talked to the patient. The completed POLST form is not simply an expression of a patient’s treatment preferences; it is a set of physician's orders which must be followed.

POLST medical orders travel with the patient from one healthcare setting to the next and even home to be followed by EMT's in the event of a medical emergency. The first order in many POLST-type forms is "FIRST follow these orders, THEN contact Physician, Advanced Practice Nurse, or Physician Assistant for further orders if indicated."[i]

POLST is tilted toward non-treatment and can encourage premature withdrawal of treatment from patients who, but for the denial of treatment, would not die. Facilitators present options for treatment as if they are morally neutral, even though certain decisions may lead to euthanasia by omission. Groups that promote euthanasia and assisted suicide, such as Compassion & Choices (formed by the merger of Compassion in Dying—a Hemlock Society spin-off—and End of Life Choices), strongly endorse POLST. This is a big RED FLAG.

Doctors should have the right to say NO to assisted suicide

Dear Editor:

Jeannette Hall

I was disturbed to read the editorial by Tom Preston arguing that hospitals and doctors should not have the right to say "No" to participating in Washington's death with dignity act (09/01/13).  If this had been the law in Oregon, and if my doctor had followed it, I would likely be dead.

Assisted-suicide has been legal here in Oregon since 1997. It was enacted by a ballot measure that I voted for. In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had 6 months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed, but I was not sure how to go about doing it. I tried to ask my doctor, but he didn't really answer me. In hindsight, he was stalling me, trying to get me to change my mind.

I did not want to suffer. I wanted to do our law and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me to not give up and ultimately I decided to fight. I did chemotherapy and radiation. It is now thirteen years later. I am so happy to be alive!

Assisted-suicide should not be legal. Oregon and Washington have made a terrible mistake.

Jeanette Hall
King City, Oregon