A healthy blind woman dies by euthanasia in the Netherlands

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Daily Mail reported for the first time, an otherwise healthy blind woman was euthanized in the Netherlands.

The article reported that:

Dutch medics have killed a woman by lethal injection after she went blind – in Holland’s first case of euthanasia for a disability. 

The unnamed 70-year-old woman was deemed by two doctors to be ‘suffering unbearably’ as a result of her blindness and her wish to die was granted. 

She had previously tried to comment suicide ‘several times’, according to Trouw, a Dutch newspaper. 

The woman had been born with poor eyesight which had deteriorated into blindness as she entered old age. She had lived alone since her husband died.

Amy Hasbrouck, the leader of Tourjours Vivant - Not Dead Yet (TVNDY), is legally blind. The TVNDY website states that:

People with disabilities and chronic illnesses and seniors are the people most directly affected by assisted suicide, euthanasia, and other practices of the end of life.

DutchNews.nl reported that Health specialist Lia Bruin told Amsterdam-based Trouw that the case was ‘exceptional’.

'She was, for example, obsessed by cleanliness and could not stand being unable to see spots on her clothes,' Bruin said.

Peter Saunders

The Daily Mail article interviewed Dr. Peter Saunders, campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance who stated:

‘Euthanasia in the Netherlands is way out of control. ... 

‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is more accurately termed 'incremental extension', the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’  

‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’

The Daily Mail article continued by stating:

Most euthanasia cases in Holland involve cancer patients but increasingly that have included dementia sufferers and even psychiatric patients. 

In 2005, however, the Groningen Protocol protected doctors from being prosecuted for the euthanasia of infants as long as they followed approved guidelines. 

Euthanasia is carried out by administering a strong sedative to put the patient in a coma, followed by a drug to stop breathing and cause death. 

Holland is following a pattern of incremental euthanasia deaths wherever the practice has been legalised. 

Last year, Belgium, where euthanasia came into force in 2003, saw a 25 per cent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths, leaping from 1,133 in 2011 to 1,432, a figure representing about two per cent of all deaths in the country. 

Last month Nancy Verhelst, 44, was legally killed by euthanasia after doctors botched her sex change operation, leaving her with physical deformities she felt made her look like a ‘monster’. 

The doctors who killed her - David Dufour and Wim Distelmans – were the same men who killed the Verbessem twins.  

This week the Belgian parliament will discuss proposals to extend euthanasia to children, dementia sufferers and people with long-term illnesses.

Links to similar articles:

• Botched sex change operation victim euthanized in Belgium.
• Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness.
• Assisted suicide: A chilling prospect for people with disabilities.

All you need to know about euthanasia and assisted suicide in Britain.

This article originally appeared on Dr. Peter Saunders blog.

Care not Killing, which promotes good care and opposes euthanasia, has just updated its website to include more ready access to key campaign information.

There is now a new ‘Live Issues’ page which gives up to date information on all the main issues CNK has been involved in, along with key dates, links to background information and action points.

From here you can quickly get an overview of what is happening with the Falconer and Macdonald Bills, the Nicklinson, Lamb and ‘Martin’ court cases, the Liverpool Care Pathway, Media bias and the Royal College of General Practitioners consultation.

A policy guide explains where CNK stands on all these issues and more and an ‘About Page’ summarises the alliance's main arguments clearly and succinctly.

There is also an FAQ page which deals with the common questions people ask and a ‘Get involved’ page which explains how you can get more engaged with CNK's campaigns.

Don’t forget too to sign up to the twitter feed and facebook community and be aware of the videos on the CNK You Tube channel.

Latest updates on current events and personal stories are linked from the homepage and you can easily access recent stories from the last year – listed month by month - over the last on the‘latest’ page.

CNK was set up in 2006 and represents over 40 organisations and thousands of concerned citizens. It has been a leading voice on end of life issues in the UK since its launch. 

Euthanasia is not mercy. It is barbarous.

The following article was written by Rosie DiManno and published in the Toronto Star on October 7, 2013 under the title: Death to death with dignity.

Rosie DiManno

By Rosie DiManno - Toronto Star - October 7, 2013

"It’s our own distress that we can’t abide, not that of the dying."

I went to my Uncle Valentino’s funeral the other day. He died just a couple weeks short of his 88th birthday, leaving a wife to whom he’d been married for 67 years, two daughters, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and the legacy of a generous life well-lived.

After several months of painful struggle and with amputation of both feet looming — which he’d steadfastly refused — Valentino fell finally into a deep, peaceful sleep and didn’t wake up. His family had never left his side, not only because the gravely ill need the constant presence of an advocate when hospitalized but also because they did not want to miss a single treasured hour of a life draining away.

Despite the suffering, not once to my knowledge did Uncle Val ever express a wish to depart this earth, to hurry up his leave-taking because the pain of living had become too great.

I like to think that Valentino willed himself to die, in the end. He was done. And this is the only form of self-extinction I can morally abide.

My own father, through half a year of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, was in unbearable agony in his final weeks of consciousness. He screamed from the pain and I screamed watching it. But when he begged to make it stop, he didn’t mean “end my life.” And it never crossed my mind to think, “Kill off this man as an act of kindness.”

What I wanted to do was kill the medical men and women around him who were failing so monstrously to alleviate his pain. My father did not need assisted suicide. He needed assistance to manage end-of-life traumas that assaulted his body.

We are all so desperately afraid of pain and burdening those we love. We are increasingly adopting the euphemistic vocabulary of assisted-suicide as if phrases like “dying with dignity” mean anything in the real world, drawing outrageous comparisons to animals put down as a mercy that should be extended to human beings. In fact, we destroy our aged and ill pets to extinguish our own distress, the messiness of tending to a needy creature.

I do not kill my animals. I’ve lain down with them, held them, waited for dogs and cats to draw their last breath.

We are not animals, though that might be a moral improvement.

It is repugnant that we are now discussing doing away with the elderly, the diseased, the terminally ill, those whose “quality of life” — a dreadful expression — has been deemed unendurable.

We forget what every other generation before this one has understood in its bones: That dying, with all its miseries, is a part of living; that we do not and should not get to choose the moment of our death any more than we chose the moment of our birth; and that those who exist in the shadowy realm between life and death are in a state of grace, which is the gift they give us — to witness and feel this existential dimension, this passage. It is a spiritualism few of us would otherwise experience and it matters not if you’re a person of faith or an atheist.

I am dismayed about where this assisted suicide public debate will lead us as a society, with Quebec already tabling legislation that would allow physicians to hasten death and British Columbia earlier striking down the Criminal Code provision against euthanasia, a decision now under appeal.

The public’s apparent eagerness to embrace the ethically profane is being driven by a generation of Baby Boomers who, throughout their lives, have become accustomed to setting the moral template by which everybody else must abide. Now, as they slouch towards twilight, the dying of the light, they don’t want it to hurt. I wonder about their frail and dependent parents, those who are still alive, and what they must think about the escalating tenor of their expendability.

How foolish to believe that we can or even should dictate to death or, worse, that dying amidst excruciating pain, as our faculties disappear, as we become more helpless than babies, is somehow an undignified end. It is merely the nature of things, sometimes, and it’s nature that the assisted suicide promoters wish to defy.

Do not for one minute pretend that that this is anything other than a slippery slope towards the annihilation of human beings who tax our willingness to cope with the disabled, the deformed, the grievously ill. It’s our own distress that we can’t abide, not theirs.

In Belgium, which 11 years ago became the second country in the world to legalize euthanasia for adults, 2 per cent of deaths annually occur in this manner. Now Belgian politicians are debating an amendment to the law that would make it the first country to legalize euthanasia of children of any age in cases of “unbearable and irreversible” suffering. Unbearable to whom? Palliative sedation is available for these youngsters but some parents want a quicker and “merciful” end. These are not youngsters who can express their own wishes.

In the Netherlands, children between the ages of 12 and 16 can already request euthanasia, with a parent’s permission.

The parameters are less restrictive than you might think. Last year, twin Belgian brothers in their early 40s requested euthanasia because they were both deaf and going slowly blind. It was granted. Euthanasia has also been granted to patients with chronic depression or with the early signs of Alzheimer’s.

In Canada we have doctors with a God-complex fighting for the legal right to decide when life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn, even over the objections of a patient’s family.

But these are not just decisions that individuals make for themselves or on behalf of dependants and loved ones incapable of formulating the answer: No. Every erosion of the principle that all life is sacred, no matter the infirmities or “indignities,” adds to the manifest disregard, the impatience, with those whose limited existence is deemed less worthy, intolerable and an encumbrance. It dilutes the time-immemorial taboos against taking a life.

This is not mercy. It is barbarous.

Links to similar articles:

Belgium and the Netherlands abandon humanity as they embrace euthanasia.

Assisted suicide a chilling prospect for people with disabilities.

Our response to Dr Low: Legalizing euthanasia has consequences and is not safe.

Canada's Federal government will not support assisted suicide.

The Canadian Press reported that Canada's Minister of Health, the Hon Rona Ambrose unequivocally stated:

"We do not support assisted suicide--that is our government's clear position."

Rona Ambrose

Following the discussion on Friday, October 4, 2013 between the federal and provincial health ministers, Ambrose said to the media:

"Quebec is going through the motions of debate in their legislature, and should that pass, then obviously we would look to see what to do with that, and if it does end up in court, then the courts would decide about the jurisdiction."

The Quebec government introduced Bill 52, a bill that would legalize euthanasia through the back-door by re-defining euthanasia as medical treatment, even though euthanasia is defined in the Federal Criminal Code as a form of homicide.

Bill 384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, was debated in Canada's parliament in 2009-10. In April 2010, the Bill 384 was defeated by an overwhelming margin of 228 to 59, with the majority of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP rejecting the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Rejean Hebert

At the same press conference, Quebec's Health Minister, Rejean Hebert said about Bill 52:

"Its not assisted suicide, It's medical aid for dying"

Hebert is right. Bill 52 legalizes euthanasia, under the euphemism "medical aid in dying" it does not legalize assisted suicide. 

Bill 52 gives physicians the right to lethally inject their patients, but Bill 52 does not allow physicians to write lethal prescriptions for a patient to "self-administer."

If Bill 52 passes, without amendments, in the Quebec National Assembly it appears that the Federal government will launch a court challenge. 

The federal government has a very strong case because lethal injections (euthanasia) are not a form of medical treatment (provincial jurisdiction) but rather a form of homicide (federal jurisdiction).

Belgium and Holland abandon humanity as they embrace euthanasia.

This article was written by Dr Tim Stanley and published on October 3, 2013 in the Telegraph.

Tim Stanley

By Dr Tim Stanley, Telegraph - October 3, 2013

This week Nathan Verhelst, only 44-years old, elected to be killed by lethal injection because he was left traumatised by a botched sex changer operation . It's a story full of incredible pain: born into an identity he couldn't stand, abandoned by his mother, revolted by the body that doctors created for him and, finally, committing suicide with the help of the state. What's most tragic of all is how it ends. Nathan Verhelst was clearly a lonely man in desperate need of human sympathy and kindness. Yet that kindness came not in the form of love but a lethal injection. Is this the West's idea of humane behaviour?

This isn't a story about transgenderism. The change from becoming one sex to another is complex, risky and fraught with emotion – but a lot of people achieve the transition and are happy with the results. Whether or not Verhelst should have undergone the change is a matter between him as his doctors and worthy of little more comment than, "Good luck." No, this is a story about a man who went through a personal Hell that could have been sparked by any variety of emotional distress and who wound up hating himself, lonely and inclined to give up living altogether. Aside from the personal tragedy involved, what gives the story a particular relevance for all of us is that the Belgian state regarded helping him to die as a legitimate response to his problems. And this is part of a growing trend.

Belgian law states that citizens can be euthanised if a doctor confirms that they are in "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain" resulting from an "accident or incurable illness". In the past year alone, the number of people electing to be killed jumped 25 per cent and it's now the cause of 1 in 50 deaths in the country. Recent cases have included a 44-year old woman with chronic anorexia nervosa and a 64-year old woman with chronic depression. Of course, there's a lot of data we don't know about. One survey found that 32 per cent of assisted deaths are conducted without request and 47 per cent go unreported. It's not unreasonable, then, to speculate that Belgian society is undergoing a slow cultural shift in the way that it regards death.

If you find that troubling, compare it with what's happening in the Netherlands. There, 1 in 30 deaths are now assisted. A private charity operates mobile euthanasia units, which travel from one care home to another – door-to-door – to help anyone to die who has been denied the opportunity by a doctor. They only visit each home once a week to relieve the potential psychological burden – but it must still be quite a shock when a group of smiling nurses turn up at your door and politely ask if you'd like to die today.

Netherlands euthanasia statistics should serve as a warning to Quebec, France and to the states in America considering assisted suicide

The following article was published by OneNewsNow on October 4, 2013.

Don't say you weren't warned about euthanasia.

The Netherlands has recorded increases annually in euthanasia since it was legalized, and 2012 was no different: a 13-percent increase representing three percent of all deaths in the country. Fifty-five people with dementia or other psychiatric conditions died by euthanasia, including those with depression.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells OneNewsNow what's important, too, is what is not reported.

“What is missing is that in the major report that was done in 2010, which was a meta-analysis, they found that 23 percent of all the euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands were not reported,” says Schadenberg. 

“So therefore this is only the reported deaths. It's not the unreported deaths obviously, so therefore if you look at the total number of deaths it's much higher than that.”

“What's very important is since 2006 the number of euthanasia deaths has more than doubled,” said Schadenberg

Links to similar articles:
Netherlands 2012 euthanasia report: Sharp increase in euthanasia deaths.
Euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in 2012 in Belgium.
Quebec euthanasia bill (Bill 52) is very dangerous.

It's time to talk about euthanasia

An interesting article was written by Judith Timson and published on October 3, 2013 in the Toronto Star under the title: Its time to talk about dying. 

This article is particularly interesting when one considers the ambiguous language in the Quebec government euthanasia bill (Bill 52).

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Timson's article opens with a narrative concerning her 89 year-old friend Zelda who has attended several "death café" meetings. Timson then writes about Dr Donald Low's video in which the prominent infectious disease  specialist called for Canada to legalize assisted suicide. 

Timson notes (disapprovingly) that Canada's federal government has no intention of legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This is where the article becomes interesting, Timson states:

Bring up legalized assisted suicide and everyone chimes in. “It’s really not that complex” says an acquaintance. “You go to a doctor, get certified as both sane and terminal and you get a prescription you can take when you’re ready to die.” 

I believe that if you are dying and almost certainly unlikely to recover, you should be able to decide when and how to die. But my own family’s experience has complicated this view. 

When my mother was 70, she lay seriously ill in intensive care, intubated, in an induced coma, with a jet ventilator breathing for her. The nurses would rub her feet and say to each other, “why are they keeping this poor woman alive?” 

My mom answered that question: she fully recovered, lived for 20 more wonderful years, saw her grandchildren grow up, and became a volunteer at that hospital, where the nurses told her about their conversation, marvelling at the miracle of her recovery. 

Life is a miracle, but so is death in a way. It’s also inconvenient, or not there when you want or need it. My husband’s grandmother Nanny used to say, before she died at 96, “I think God has forgotten I’m down here.” Despite that, she had a fierce will to live.

Assisted suicide for all?

Link to the original article published on September 26, 2013.

Derek Miedema

Quebec’s Bill 52 lacks solid criteria, casting a very wide net

By Derek Miedema - September 26, 2013

“Medical aid in dying.”¹ If that sounds like a euphemism, rest assured that it is.  Bill 52 hearings are going on at Quebec’s National Assembly from September 17 to October 10.

What this new bill would do, if passed, is legalize the deliberate killing of a patient by a doctor.

The bill hopes to protect vulnerable people from pressure to die using four criteria.

Patients must be of full age and “capable of giving consent to care.” Secondly, their illness must be “incurable” and “serious.” Thirdly, they must “suffer from an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” And finally, they must be in “constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.”²

Reading Bill 52 from a surface perspective—well, it almost sounds reassuring. Dig a little deeper, however, and the foundations are more than a little bit squishy.

Who qualifies?

For starters, they say the patient must be “capable of giving consent to care.” Yet without any prodding from the media, Quebec’s Minister for Public Health Véronique Hivon specifically mentioned that the government would consider allowing euthanasia for people with advanced Alzheimer’s disease. (These patients are currently excluded, since they can’t give informed consent.) The government had, in fact, already asked the Quebec Collège des Médecins and other professionals to study this issue, saying, “When we see what they recommend we can put that issue to the hearings.”³

The government appears ready and willing to cut the heart out of the first of its criteria.

The second criterion gets worse. What is an “incurable serious illness?” Diabetes? Kidney disease? MS? Most any illness has the possibility of becoming incurable if a patient refuses treatment. And many others happily live with “incurable serious illnesses” into a ripe old age.

The next criterion is even more difficult to pin down: A patient must “suffer from an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” At the risk of sounding flippant, aging is irreversible and brings with it a decline in capability. This is true of most any disease, particularly if treatment is declined.

Finally, the last point is the most subjective of all and renders all the other supposed protections moot. It doesn’t make any attempt at scientific or medical objectivity. It speaks of conditions which “cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.” (Emphasis mine.)

If access to euthanasia hinges on a patient’s experience of pain or what treatments that patient will or won’t accept to treat it, how can any doctor ever say no?

These criteria, far from being objective rules to protect the vulnerable, instead get bogged down in a quagmire of relativity.

When access to euthanasia hinges on the feelings of the individual requesting it, no limits or protections will stand, short or long term.

It seems very clear these criteria won’t stand for long.

Claude Leblond, president of the provincial order of social workers and family therapists, applauded the bill saying, “the day may come when the wishes of children will also have to be taken into account.”⁴

The fact that we are openly discussing killing children by euthanasia before the bill becomes law—and before any other jurisdiction in the world has considered it—is telling.

Quebec is following Belgium’s lead by using terminology in this bill that is similar to the wording of the existing Belgian law. Yet in Belgium, we see abuses of the very law Quebec seeks to emulate. Between 2002 and 2011, 95 percent of requests for euthanasia were granted.⁵  Those who were refused euthanasia are the exceptions.

Once killing is accepted as a medical procedure, apparently it’s hard to say no.

It’s hard to believe that the limitations in Bill 52 will stand. Yet even if they do, as it stands right now Bill 52 exposes vulnerable people to pressure to die.

After all, if you ask your doctor for treatment options and one of them is death—what message does that send?

Legalizing Murder for Organs?

This article was written by Wesley Smith and published on October 2, 2013 on his blog.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

The attacks on the dead donor rule–which requires death as a precondition of donating vital organs–are continuing in the world’s most prestigious medical and bioethical journals. 

Take the New England Journal of Medicine, which has just published opposing articles about the issue.

The pro-killing for organs article–by Robert D. Truog, M.D., Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., and Scott D. Halpern M.D. Ph.D., contends that past assurances about donors being dead were, essentially, lies. (I disagree.) But rather than urge a return to ethical standards, the authors go all in for legalizing homicide for organs. From, “The Dead-Donor Rule and the Future of Organ Donation:”

Accordingly, patients should be permitted to donate vital organs except in circumstances in which doing so would harm them; and they would not be harmed when their death was imminent owing to a decision to stop life support. That patients be dead before their organs are recovered is not a foundational ethical requirement. Rather, by blocking reasonable requests from patients and families to donate, the DDR both infringes donor autonomy and unnecessarily limits the number and quality of transplantable organs.

Except: Not all patients who have life support removed, with the expectation that they will die, actually expire. And you can’t necessarily tell which-is-which ahead of time.

So, the authors would certainly seem to be arguing that we legalize murder for organs. Yup:

Although shifting the ethical foundation of organ donation from the DDR to the principles of autonomy and nonmaleficence would require creation of legal exceptions to our homicide laws, this would not be the first time we have struggled to reconcile laws with the desire of individual patients to die in the manner of their own choosing.

I would also point out that surrogates would be able to make the kill decision, just as they can agree now to donate after death even if the dead patient never agreed. Hello, Michael Schiavo?

This really gets me: We are told to trust the experts whenever there is a new and radical shift in bioethical public policy proffered. When society does, toward the end of going even farther down the road, we are later told the earlier assurances were really a charade.

But instead of advocating going back to a more ethical approach, these “experts” urge us to dive down the slope toward the moral cliff.

No thank you. If you want to destroy the people’s trust in organ transplant medicine, turn surgeons into killers.

The article in favor of maintaining the dead donor rule, by James Bernat, can be found here: I agree with Bernat. 

Tasmanian premier admits that her euthanasia bill may allow death tourism.

This article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published on his blog on September 30, 2013.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

The Hobart Mercury reported that Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings admits that death tourism is a possibility if her euthanasia & assisted suicide bill become law.

The Premier is euther deluded or ignorant of her own bill when she says not only that the bill is for terminally ill patients, whom she says would not be able to make the trip to Tasmania, and that it would take a month of residency to qualify.

The terms of the legislation would make it possible for a new Tasmanian resident to begin the process towards euthanasia or assisted suicide after only a few days in the fair state. Nor does the bill only apply to terminal illness - others with a progressive illness may also qualify.

The Premier is quoted in the article as saying: 

“When you think about the sort of person who would be eligible to go through the system, these are very, very sick people and it would be a huge effort for them to just uproot from other parts of Australia to move to Tasmania and participate in this process.” 

But people should remember the dogged determination of a man called Max Bell who, though terminally ill and extremely sick, drove his taxi to Darwin from Broken Hill in a vain attempt to access the Northern Territory's then euthanasia Act. No, Premier, it is not difficult to foresee a trade in one way tickets to Hobart.

Then there's this admission:

“If they did and they could prove that they had become Tassie citizens or residents I should say then they comply. They are part of our system.” 

We've checked; proof of residency in terms of the bill is very simple and for one determined to line up the dominoes, the whole process could be over and done with (move through to death) within two weeks.

If the Premier doesn't understand her own bill, how can anyone be expected to support it?

Links to similar articles:

Tasmania introduces euthanasia bill.

Australian Prime Minister says: I don't support euthanasia.

Tasmanian euthanasia bill will likely die.

Botched sex change operation victim euthanized in Belgium.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A shocking news story from the Telegraph reports that a Belgian person has died by euthanasia after a botched sex change operation. 

I am concerned about this story. Nathan, born Nancy Verhelst (44), died by a lethal injection on Monday for reasons of Psychological suffering. Psychological suffering is an undefined concept that leads to the acceptance of euthanasia for nearly any reason.

Bill 52, the euthanasia bill in Quebec, uses identical definitions as the Belgian euthanasia law, and sadly, cases such as this one may also be considered acceptable under the euthanasia bill in Quebec.

The Telegraph article, written by Bruno Waterfield reported:

Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" on Monday afternoon. 

Marc & Eddy Verbessem

Wim Distelmans, a cancer specialist who carried out the euthanasia, is the same doctor who late last year gave lethal injections to congenitally deaf twins who were frightened they were also going blind. 

"I was the girl that nobody wanted," Mr Verhelst told Het Laatste Nieuws  newspaper in the hours before death. 

"While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. 'If only you had been a boy', my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more." 

Mr Verhelst had hormone therapy in 2009, followed by a mastectomy and surgery to construct a penis in 2012. But "none of these operations worked as desired". 

"I was ready to celebrate my new birth," he told the newspaper. "But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be... a monster. " 

The case will revive Belgium's debate over medical euthanasia as statistics show a steep year on year increase in the number of patients killed by doctors after a request to die. 

Belgium recorded a record number of 1,432 cases of euthanasia in 2012, up 25 per cent from the previous year and the country is currently deciding whether to extend "mercy killing" legislation to children. 

Professor Distelmans, who carried the euthanasia of Mr Verhelst, is the same doctor who last December gave lethal injections to twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 45. 

The two men brothers were both born deaf and asked for euthanasia after finding that they might also both go blind. After having their request to die refused by their local hospital, Prof. Distelmans accepted on the grounds of 'unbearable psychological suffering'. 

"The choice of Nathan Verhelst has nothing to do with fatigue of life," said Dr Distelmans. "There are other factors that meant he was in a situation with incurable, unbearable suffering. Unbearable suffering for euthanasia can be both physical and psychological. This was a case that clearly met the conditions demanded by the law. Nathan underwent counseling for six months." 

Euthanasia carried out by doctors at the request of a patient is only legal in three European countries, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Links to Similar articles:

• Quebec euthanasia bill is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.
• Research article confirms: Belgian euthanasia law is being abused.
• Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness.

Vivre dans la Dignité (Living with Dignity): from their submission to the Quebec Committee on Health and Social Services- September 25, 2013 concerning euthanasia Bill 52

On September 25, 2013 Vivre dans la Dignité (Living with Dignity) presented before the Quebec Committee on Health and Social Services concerning Bill 52 "An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care"

The following is a slightly edited version of the September 25, Living with Dignity submission.

Who is Living with Dignity: 

Our group is a non-profit citizen movement, non-religious and non-partisan, which was formed in 2010. Its mission is to defend the inherent and inalienable value that is the dignity of every individual. It includes people from all sectors of society, many of whom work in health care (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc.). Several thousand members and sympathisers support it.

Why Living with Dignity opposes Bill 52: 

Let there be no doubt: what Bill 52 is proposing is to cross a red line. A big red line. The one that has been drawn from the beginning of our country and that is universally accepted around the world: a citizen cannot cause death another citizen, for any reason except in cases of self-defence. Historically the only exception to this prohibition, which has always made consensus, was the death penalty, which is now banned in our country, in spite should we remember, that many polls have consistently demonstrated a desire of the majority of the population to legalize it (about 60-70% approval). ... No. Without going into the details of the legal arguments in support of this decision, we can say that the legal foundation on which our society rests, is based on affirmations of certain basic rights. ...This is the red line that the Government of Quebec with Bill 52 wants to blow, to strike and to be replaced by something else that is not quite clear, a shapeless and subjective thing that is evoked by words such as "medical aid in dying" and "terminal palliative sedation."

A matter of Life and Death:

To illustrate more clearly, let us say that if a decision of the National Assembly entailed the adoption and coming into force of Bill 52, this would be likely to bring about the premature death of hundreds and possibly thousands of individuals each year (we will demonstrate below how we arrive at this estimate). ...For this reason, it is important that each member has the maximum amount of information and freedom to exercise his or her vote in an informed way and not be content with those platitudes or clichés that are currently conveyed on this issue.

Living with Dignity believes it would be inconceivable from an ethics point of view that the vote in the National Assembly be expressed otherwise than by a free vote, and for all parties, whether in power or in opposition.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: "I don't support euthanasia"

Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, commented on the euthanasia bill that was introduced in the Tasmanian legislature by stating:

"I don't support euthanasia."

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald examines both sides of the euthanasia debate.

In response to the recent euthanasia bill introduced by the Tasmanian legislature Abbott said:

Tasmania, unlike a Commonwealth territory, was entitled to do what it thought best. 

"I don't support euthanasia." 

"The problem with changing the law here is that it will lead to people who aren't in imminent danger of death being assisted to die." 

He agreed that doctors quite possibly now applied pain relief with the intention of speeding death. 

"I think the situation that we've got at the moment is a perfectly acceptable one," he said.

Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia will be working with REALdignityTas to defeat the euthanasia bill in Tasmania.

If the bill passes, it is expected that Philip Nitschke will set-up a euthanasia clinic in Tasmania.

Links to similar articles:
Tasmania introduces euthanasia bill.
Tasmania euthanasia bill will likely die.
Tasmania euthanasia bill. Broad medicalized killing.