British Medical Association (BMA) rejects Scottish assisted suicide bill

By Alex Schadenberg

The Pulse news service reported today that the British Medical Association (BMA) stated that it will oppose the euthanasia bill that is being sponsored by MSP Margo MacDonald in Scotland.

The Pulse reported that Dr Lewis Morrison, chair of the Scottish BMA consultants committee said:

‘Despite the change in approach to this, Ms MacDonald’s most recent attempt to legislate on assisted dying in Scotland, the BMA will continue to oppose the introduction of such a law.’

The BMA was quoted by the Pulse as stating:

The BMA said that doctors would be taking on a role that was ‘alien’ to their role as a care giver and that it could not support it. 

The bill was brought by MSP Margo MacDonald - an independent member for the Lothian region - in Edinburgh today and would extend to patients who had been diagnosed with chronic, degenerative diseases. 

The bill is a revision of one defeated in 2010, it drops the contentious element of physician-assisted dying and stipulates the ‘cause of death must be the person’s own deliberate act’.

Dr Morrison was also quoted as stating:

‘If doctors are authorised, by law, to kill or help kill they are taking on an additional role which we believe is alien to the one of care giver and healer. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is founded on trust and this risks being impaired if the doctor’s role encompasses any form of intentional killing.’

Margo MacDonald's last attempt to legalize assisted dying in Scotland was defeated by a vote of 85 to 16.

Links to similar articles.

EPC Europe is launched ahead of Scotland euthanasia bill.

Dr Stephen Hutchison: Assisted Suicide is not safe.

MacDonald proposes new bill to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe launches ahead of Scotland euthanasia bill.

Originally published on November 13, 2013 by STV news in Scotland.

Opponents of euthanasia will meet fellow campaigners from across Europe as they prepare to speak out against further attempts to legislate for assisted suicide at Holyrood.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe (EPC-Europe) is being launched in Brussels, bringing together organisations which are against assisted suicide, including the CARE Not Killing group in Scotland.

The founding of the coalition comes as independent MSP Margo MacDonald gets ready to officially launch her members' bill, The Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, on Thursday.

Ms MacDonald's previous attempt, in 2010, to legalise assisted dying in Scotland failed when Holyrood voted 85 to 16 against her proposal.

The former SNP politician, who has Parkinson's disease, said she has learned lessons from her previous attempt and is proposing a "clearer, more straightforward process".

Her latest Bill is opposed by CARE Not Killing, an umbrella group of around 40 professional, faith and human rights groups.

CARE Not Killing says Ms MacDonald's proposal is unethical and will put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon others.

Group convener Dr Gordon Macdonald, who is attending the launch of EPC-Europe, said: "I welcome this new initiative to coordinate efforts across Europe to prevent the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

"The Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly rejected an attempt by Margo MacDonald to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2010. 

"MSPs concluded that vulnerable people would be put at risk from such legislation. Scotland can learn from the damaging effects legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide in other parts of Europe and North America. 

"Europe can learn from Scotland's example as a country which has rejected the view that some people lives are not worth living. We believe that society has a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable."

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, co-ordinator of EPC-Europe, said: 

"The UK, France and Germany are currently considering legislation but overwhelming evidence from jurisdictions where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is legal, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, demonstrates beyond doubt how quickly and easily euthanasia is extended to others, especially disabled people and elderly people."

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition launches to halt growing threat of state-sanctioned euthanasia.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe launches to halt ‘growing threat’ of state-sanctioned euthanasia

A new coalition is being launched in Brussels on Wednesday November 13, 2013 to combat the growing threat of euthanasia across Europe.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe, (EPC-Europe) brings together organisations and individuals from across the continent to campaign against the erosion of laws that protect people from euthanasia.

This new campaign group will act as a powerful voice against attempts to change laws across Europe that protect people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, OBE, Coordinator of EPC-Europe said: 

‘The UK, France and Germany are currently considering legislation, but overwhelming evidence from jurisdictions where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is legal, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, demonstrates beyond doubt, how quickly and easily euthanasia is extended to others, especially disabled people and elderly people. High-profile cases here have provoked international outrage leading commentators to think of Belgium as the new world leader in exploiting euthanasia against those with disabilities and mental health issues for example.’

The group will highlight cases of euthanasia in Belgium including those of Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; and the case of Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child ‘so ugly’ at birth and did not mourn his death. And the case of Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

Dr Fitzpatrick continued, 

‘The lack of proper social care in Belgium as well as medical failures, mean non-terminally ill patients are left with no choice and suffer fatal consequences. Euthanasia has also begun in Belgium for organ donation, and for prisoners.’

EPC-Europe will also warn that Belgium is currently considering extending euthanasia to children. ‘We all know that euthanasia is already practised on children,’ said the head of the intensive care unit of Fabiola Hospital in Brussels.

In the Netherlands disabled new-born babies are euthanised under the Groningen Protocol, on grounds of ‘their perceived future suffering, or that of their parents’. This includes neonates with spina bifida.

Tanni Grey-Thompson

As Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, of the British House of Lords said:

‘If that had existed in the UK when I was born there is a possibility that I would not be alive now.  I would never have been allowed to experience life and my daughter might never have been born.’

The group will highlight changing attitudes to disabled and vulnerable people, saying that those with physical and mental disabilities, elderly and poor people must be given the same protections as non-disabled, wealthier people.

In the Netherlands the number of deaths by euthanasia has increased by 64% between 2005 and 2010. In comparison, the Dutch population grew by less than two percent over the same period. Yet the Dutch are now discussing the extension of euthanasia to people with dementia despite huge concerns about proper consent.

Dr Fitzpatrick concluded, 

‘EPC-Europe brings people from a wide variety of backgrounds together to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide, promote the best care and support for vulnerable people and to help people to find meaning, purpose and hope in the face of suffering and despair.  We invite others who share our concerns to join us and work alongside us.’

EPC Europe Press Conference

Aims of EPC-Europe

1. We oppose the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide and will work to repeal existing laws allowing it
2. We promote the best care and support for vulnerable people who are sick, elderly, or disabled
3. We affirm life through helping people to find meaning, purpose and hope in the face of suffering and despair.

We will work throughout Europe, and with like-minded people and organisations across the world.

Assisted-dying law would bring risks for the vulnerable

The following article was written by Nic Steenhout, the director of Vivre dans la Dignité, and published in the Montreal Gazette on November 12, 2013

Re: “Opposition to bill on assisted dying tends to be markedly one-sided” (Opinion, Nov. 11)

Nic Steenhout

By Nic Steenhout

Wayne Sumner would have us believe that the eligibility criteria for medical aid in dying under the bill are strict and narrow.

A close analysis of Article 26 of the bill tells us that to qualify, one must be adult, competent and be a resident of Quebec, have a grave and incurable illness, experience an advanced decline of abilities, and have physical or psychological pain that one deems unbearable. At no point in the eligibility criteria is “end of life” mentioned. At no point in the bill is “end of life” even defined.

These eligibility criteria would open access to medical aid in dying to many people with disabilities. Someone living multiple sclerosis could qualify, even if they have years of a full and active life ahead of them. Someone unable to handle the emotional trauma of losing her sight could qualify and be euthanized (as happened recently in the Netherlands). Someone unable to handle the anguish of a botched gender reassignment surgery could qualify and be euthanized (as happened recently in Belgium). Someone with chronic severe depression could qualify.

Palliative-care doctors tell us that pain can be treated in 95 per cent of cases. The remaining 5 per cent of people have access to palliative sedation.

This is already legal. There is no need to implement a law that is such a risk to our elders and people with disabilities.

Despite what the proponents of the bill claim, experience from countries where euthanasia is legal shows us that we are talking about significant numbers. The author of the article says 3 per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands are medically assisted. In Quebec in 2012, there were 60,800 deaths. Three per cent of that would be 1,824 medically assisted deaths. I fail to see how hastening the death of nearly 2,000 people could be seen as “quite small.” Considering the hue and cry over Quebec’s death toll on the roads (479 in 2011), the question is, how can we not be concerned about the risks such a bill brings to Quebec’s most vulnerable groups: elders and people with disabilities?

Nicolas Steenhout
Outremont Quebec

Nitschke to open euthanasia clinic as Bob Such MP opens euthanasia debate in South Australia

The Australian media are reporting that Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr. Death, intends to open a euthanasia clinic in South Australia by the end of the week while Independent MP, Bob Such will re-open the debate.

Philip Nitschke

The article in the Australian Herald Sun stated:

A Euthanasia clinic set up in Adelaide will test drugs, distribute nitrogen kits and "provide services" to terminally ill patients. 

It is expected to start taking patients by the end of the week.

The Herald Sun reported that:

Although he conceded it was "a grey line, this idea of giving people advice" about euthanasia. 

Dr Nitschke said Adelaide was chosen as the site for Australia's first euthanasia clinic and research laboratory because legislation attempting to legalise voluntary euthanasia in South Australia was before Parliament.

Nitschke explained that Bob Such's euthanasia bill has led him to opening a euthanasia clinic. The Herald Sun reported him to have said:

Dr Nitschke said the Ending Life with Dignity Bill, proposed by Independent MP Bob Such, "could well pass through the SA parliament in the near future and the services offered by the euthanasia centre will become critical". 

The clinic is expecting a couple of patients a week, including some who travel from interstate.

The Australian newspaper reported on the status of the Australian Medical Association investigation into Nitschke. The Australian stated:

Dr Nitschke said he had received recent communication from the Medical Board of Australia about two current investigations into his medical registration and suitability to practice medicine. 

He said he was advised in a November 1 letter that the investigations, which have been running for two years, are still ongoing "because of the nature and complexity of the issues being investigated".

According to Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia, Such only has two parliamentary days to get his bill through the legislature. Russell says that Such claims to have made changes from his last euthanasia bill, but the bill remains as misguided and dangerous as his previous euthanasia bills.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicts that Bob Such's euthanasia bill will once again be defeated in South Australia.

Belgium, where death becomes the norm, living the exception.

A documentary about ten years of legal euthanasia is a touchstone for radically different approaches to suffering.

By Margaret Somerville - This article was published on Mercatornet.

Margaret Somerville

Recently I received an invitation to fly to Calgary in mid-November to attend the North American première of a film called End Credits at the Marda Loop Justice Film Festival. I was asked to lead a post-screening conversation with the audience and was given access to a copy of the film with English subtitles, which I viewed once. My access has since been blocked and my invitation to attend the festival withdrawn. The scenes from the film, which I describe below, are accurate to the best of my recollection.

End Credits is directed by Alexander Decommere and written by Marc Cosyns. It’s a documentary on the practice of euthanasia in Belgium 10 years after it was legalized in 2002. It follows the dying and death of two people, whom the film makers describe as follows: “Adelin, 83, and Eva, 34, two very different people, who are at the dawn of the end of their lives, ask for help with and care for a decent passing away.”

Link to the Trailer for End Credits.

The most striking commonality shared by the old man, Adelin, and the young woman, Eva, is that they are profoundly lonely.

We first meet Adelin in the nursing home where he lives. He is physically fragile and cognitively impaired. At one point, he describes his life as a “dead life” — a powerful phrase that must be heard and which should raise questions of how to improve his situation. It brings to mind lung specialist, Dr Donald Boudreau’s words in speaking about euthanasia: “These euthanologists — if they have their way — will create a moral ecosystem where we will all be traversing through a sort of ‘living death’. Life is the qualifier. Death is the unshakable and primary reality.” At a certain point, death becomes the norm or basic presumption, living the exception.

Adelin has given his consent to euthanasia in an advance directive executed when he was competent. His physician is trying to determine whether Adelin still wants to go ahead with the procedure. Adelin’s nephew, a middle-aged man, is sitting beside his bed. He urges the physician to administer a lethal injection, because, he says, his uncle is no longer mentally competent, so can’t validly change his mind about euthanasia. The physician continues to try to clarify with the old man whether he wants euthanasia.

Suddenly, Adelin has a burst of energy and seeming lucidity, and shouts, “You want to kill me,” and is clearly horrified by the thought. He is not euthanized and some time later dies a natural death.

Eva is a young Belgian woman, who suffers from mental illness (probably severe depression), who wants euthanasia and, subsequently, to donate her organs. Medical journal articles report organs being taken from euthanized people in Belgium for transplant. In at least one of these cases, a woman donor was mentally ill, but not physically ill.

However, Eva is refused permission to donate by the relevant authority, but she still chooses to go ahead with euthanasia.

We see shots of Eva with her beautiful dog and learn that her brother is in the house, but not with her when she dies, which says so much. Eva says to the physician, “Let’s get on with this.” Wearing sweat pants and a jersey, she lies down on her living room couch and rolls up her sleeve, as though she is going to have her blood pressure taken.

Watching the physician euthanizing her is a chilling experience: The lack of any human warmth. The lack of any sense of the momentousness of what is being done — one human being, and a physician at that, intentionally killing another human being who is his patient. The mundaneness of it all, which is reinforced by the scenes of the physician sitting at Eva’s kitchen table, after he has killed her, routinely filling out the necessary reporting forms.

I was puzzled by what stance on euthanasia the film makers were taking, but my overall impression was, it was probably one of neutrality and, I thought, the film might function as a very powerful cri de coeur against euthanasia.

So I tried, although unsuccessfully as the film makers ignored my emails, to get permission to show the film to others, in particular, the students in my Medical Law class. I recommended to the Quebec National Assembly committee holding hearings on legalizing euthanasia in Quebec that they try to see the film to understand why they should reject euthanasia and Bill 52.

To my absolute astonishment and distress, I subsequently learned from Belgian colleagues that the film is intended to promote euthanasia and was funded by “Recht op Waardig Sterven,” a pro-euthanasia movement comparable to “The right to die with dignity” movements in Canada and that its writer, Dr Marc Cosyns, is a strong supporter and practitioner of euthanasia in Belgium. How could I have been so confused?

The explanation is the different ways in which pro- and anti-euthanasia adherents would view the two deaths featured in this film.

We see Adelin gradually deteriorating and dying over a period of time. This is difficult to watch, but he is empathetically and compassionately attended by those caring for him, until he dies naturally. They manifest the virtue of patience in their “deathwatch” of Adelin. We all want his dying to be over, but that is very different from making it be over with a lethal injection. I see his human dignity as being respected and his death as a “good death.” He, himself, and not someone else, completes his life cycle and the mystery of life and death is not violated.

Pro-euthanasia advocates would regard Adelin’s dying trajectory as an unacceptable loss of autonomy and control on his part. They would see him as having lost his dignity and his state as making him less of a person or even a non-person — an incomplete, diminished, or even faulty, decaying, tarnished human being — who should be put out of his undignified state through euthanasia.

I saw the physician’s relationship with Eva as cold, clinical and overly rational (which can be a characteristic of a failure of good ethical judgment), and her death as horrifying and unethical. Pro-euthanasia advocates would see it as respecting her right to autonomy and, thus, her dignity, and putting her out of her mental misery.

End Credits provides an opportunity to understand some of the ways in which people who are pro-euthanasia and those who are anti-euthanasia radically differ in how they view both dying and death, and what euthanasia involves. And those differences reflect profound differences in what we believe it means to be human and what respect for both individual human life and upholding the value of human life, in general, in our society requires that we not do.

Margaret Somerville is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law and director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law and is a leader in the discussion of ethical questions in medicine.

Montana bill to legalize assisted suicide was a bait and switch.

Bradley Williams, the President of the Montanan's Against Assisted Suicide, wrote the following article that was published on November 10 in the Missoulian newspaper. Williams was responding to a letter that by Bonnie Kelley, published in the Missoulian on November 5.

Williams states in his letter that the bill to legalize assisted suicide in Montana in the previous legislative session was a "bait and switch" promotion.

Williams explains this by stating:

* A disabilities rights representative called Senate Bill 220 a “blunt instrument“ that offered even fewer safeguards than their Oregon model law.
* Choice was not assured since a designing heir or “new best friend” was allowed to help with the application for a lethal dose. The heir could also pick up the prescription, bring it into the home and administer it without oversight. If the patient struggled, who would know?
* “Self-administer” was redefined in the bill as “to ingest,“ so anything goes.
* Family notification was not required.
* There were no waiting periods.
* Two doctors were not really required since the first doctor could waive the second.

John Kelly Responds to Online Medical Survey

This article was published on the Not Dead Yet blog on November 7, 2013

By John Kelly

John Kelly

I am a 55-year-old white man who is a quadriplegic based on a spinal cord injury in 1984.  The level of my injury was at the fourth cervical level, resulting in near total paralysis below my shoulders.  My breathing ability survived the injury, and after diaphragmatic strengthening, I have breathed without assistance for the last 30 years.  I drive a powered wheelchair with a sip/puff tube, live in the community with assistants I hire and manage myself, and work part-time as a disability rights advocate.  I am a writer and community leader in the disability community.

First, I never heard the word “death” uttered around me in the immediate time period after my injury.  No one mentioned the possibility of donating my organs, no one said the words “it might be for the best,” no one queried me regarding my “choice” to live or die.  The nurses at the rehabilitation hospital were gung ho on getting us all up into our wheelchairs and maximizing our abilities.  We spinal cord injured people learned about “independent living” and how the main impediments to us doing what we wanted to do were architectural and prejudicial, not biological.  I’m afraid that if I were injured today, I would be carefully consulted as to whether I really wanted to stay alive or not.

Based on my high level of spinal cord injury, I am quite susceptible to autonomic dysreflexia, a life-threatening condition in which blood pressure skyrockets to dangerous levels because of a pain or irritation below the lesion site.  I also have a suprapubic tube inserted directly into my bladder.

I have had a wide range of experiences with medical professionals, but they always are a cause of high anxiety.  I can simply not trust that a healthcare professional will listen to me, when I tell them what my body needs.  The level of ignorance is so high, unfortunately, and the level of arrogance equally high, that I have been frequently endangered or simply ignored in a hospital setting.

International leaders gather at Euthanasia Symposium in Toronto

For Immediate Release 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is having a media conference on Friday November 8 (10 am) at the Renaissance Marriott hotel (Aurora Room) (1 Blue Jays Way Toronto) amidst a gathering of international leaders on the topic of euthanasia.

EPC will announce its direction in relation to:

1)  The Carter case in BC, a case that seeks to legalize assisted suicide in Canada, that was struck down by the BC Court of Appeal and will likely be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.2)  Bill 52 in Quebec, that seeks to legalize euthanasia in Quebec. 

Joanne Matters, (EPC President) will MC the media conference that will feature:

● Hugh Scher, EPC legal counsel and former chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee.● Nic Steenhout, the Executive Director of Vivre dans la Dignité (Quebec).● Amy Hasbrouck, the Director of  Tourjours Vivant- Not Dead Yet (Quebec).● Dr. Will Johnston, the Chair of EPC – BC● Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of EPC.

Other International leaders will also be made available to answer questions.

The Symposium is on Friday November 8 (7 pm – 9 pm) and November 9 (9 am – 5 pm).

The Symposium features leaders from Canada and around the world including: Australia, UK, France, Netherlands, and the United States.

For more information contact Alex Schadenberg at: 519-851-1434.

Legalizing euthanasia leads to more and more killing.

The following article was written by Derek Miedema, and published on November 5, 2013 in the Montreal Gazette.

By Derek Miedema

Philippe Couillard

As Quebec’s so-called Medical Aid in Dying bill, which has been approved in principle by the National Assembly, moves on for clause-by-clause study, some members of the National Assembly are concerned that the wording is too loose. They are worried that if the bill is passed as written, it would open up a path of death for too many patients.

Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard, a neurosurgeon, has a deeper concern. He says the bill in its current form is no different than active euthanasia. While palliative care eases a dying person’s suffering and fears, euthanasia kills a person at their request ­ exactly what Bill 52 is proposing.

Couillard has a point.

Though we are calling it “medical aid in dying,” the practice is not part of medicine as Quebec has understood it to date. It does not medically aid patients in any way beyond the scope of palliative care. The only difference is that it legally allows doctors to kill patients.

As some MNAs have pointed out, this does not increase access to palliative care. It does not reduce wait times or improve Quebec’s health-care system.

Many MNAs have noticed that the current wording is not at all limited to cases of exceptional suffering.

This is troubling when you consider international precedents. Legalization around the world has always been followed by shifting criteria to include more and more people. This is as true in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, as it is in Oregon and Washington State, where assisted suicide was legalized in 1997 and 2009 respectively.

What happens when you legalize killing by incorporating it into medical treatment?

In Oregon, the number of deaths by assisted suicide has grown by 381 per cent between 1998 and 2012. Prescriptions for a poisonous cocktail to kill patients have grown by 379 per cent. And those whose deaths were “assisted” weren’t all on death’s door.

Take the story of Jeannette Hall of Oregon. In 2000, she was diagnosed with cancer and told she had six months to live. Her case fit the bill for assisted suicide, and she requested it. But Hall eventually decided to seek cancer treatment. She has since recovered from her illness and is happy to be alive today, 13 years later.

Her story illustrates how loose criteria for assisted suicide could rob you of years of good life.

Even so, some in Oregon argue the law hasn’t gone far enough. They want assisted suicide for those who are merely old. But aging is hardly exceptional, and definitely not a medical reason to be killed.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia deaths are increasing, but even more striking is the way access to euthanasia has expanded. The Dutch now kill seriously ill infants, with parental consent. They euthanize Alzheimer’s patients who are no longer capable of asking for it. Mobile euthanasia units were initiated in 2012, so doctors could do home visits to kill patients whose own doctors refuse to do so. The Dutch recently killed a woman who was “suffering unbearably” because she was going blind.

Quick Facts About Assisted Suicide

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore, Esq.*

1.  Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide. When a physician is involved, the practice is physician-assisted suicide.[1]

2. The Oregon and Washington Laws
In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide was legalized in 1997 via a ballot measure.[2] In Washington State, a similar law was passed via another ballot measure in 2008 and went into effect in March 2009.[3] 

3.  Throwing Away Your Life
The Oregon and Washington laws apply to state residents predicted to have less than six months to live.[5] Such persons are not necessarily dying.  Doctors can be wrong.[6] Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery. Consider Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to a year to live.[7] She was adamant that she would "do" Oregon’s law, but her doctor, Ken Stevens, convinced her to be treated instead.[8] She is still alive today, 13 years later.[9]

With legal assisted suicide, people with many quality years to live are encouraged to throw away their lives.

4.  A Recipe for Elder Abuse
The Washington and Oregon laws are a recipe for elder abuse. The most obvious reason is due to a lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered.[10] For example, there are no witnesses required at the death; the death is allowed occur in private.[11] With this situation, the opportunity is created for an heir, or some other person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without her consent.  Even if she struggled, who would know?

For more detail about Washington's law, which is similar to Oregon's law, read a short article by clicking here. 

5. Empowering the Healthcare System
In Oregon, patients desiring treatment under the Oregon Health Plan have been offered assisted suicide instead.

The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[12] Each wanted treatment.[13] The Plan denied their requests and offered to pay for their suicides instead.[14] Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this scenario as a celebration of their "choice." Wagner said: "I'm not ready to die."[15] Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with."[16]

Wagner and Stroup were steered to suicide. Moreover, it was the Oregon Health Plan, a government entity, doing the steering.[17] For more detail about the current situation, read the affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, by clicking here.

6.  Increased Suicide in Oregon

Oregon's suicide rate, which excludes suicides under its physician-assisted suicide law, has been "increasing significantly" since 2000.[18]

Just three years prior, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide. This increased suicide rate is consistent with a suicide contagion in which removing the stigma from one type of suicide encouraged other suicides. Montana already has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation.[19]

7.  Proposed Expansion in Washington State
Washington State legalized physician-assisted suicide in March 2009. Just three years later, there were already discussions to expand that law to direct euthanasia of non-terminal people.[20] For example, on March 8, 2012, there was a Seattle Times column suggesting euthanasia as a solution for people unable to support themselves, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column,  . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out.At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).

* Margaret 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. For more information, see: www .margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org 

Arizona man given nine year sentence for assisted suicide.

Tyler Gunn

The Arizona Daily Star reported that Tyler Gunn was sentenced to nine years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter for the January 2013 assisted suicide death of Katherine Lemberg, a friend whom Gunn aided her suicide.

The Daily Star article by Patrick McNamara stated:

Gunn, 48, told police he helped Lemberg kill herself after weeks of discussions. Lemberg had a history of depression.

Police arrested him after Gunn’s parents found him asleep on the floor in their home with Lemberg’s body lying on the bed. Court records show Gunn helped Lemberg kill herself in Redington Pass, then drove her body to his parents’ home.

Lemberg’s sister, also Gunn’s sister-in-law, Christine Gunn, said at sentencing that Tyler Gunn showed no regard for human life.

“I will never understand how someone can do something so vile,” she said.

Lemberg’s former husband and parents also spoke at the hearing. She left behind two children.

Tyler Gunn apologized to the family for the killing.

“It was wrong. It was wrong, and I deserve the consequences that are coming my way,” he said.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Paul Tang said the defendant’s cooperation with police , his remorse and no attempts at flight stood as small mitigating factors in his sentencing decision.

Still, Tang excoriated Tyler Gunn for the killing, saying assisted suicide was wrong and rightfully illegal in Arizona.

“Often times a victim’s cry for self-harm or self-destruction is just a cry for help,” Tang said.

Tyler Gunn also must pay $4,593 to Lemberg’s family.

Academics endorse euthanasia for people who are 'weary of life.'

This article is written by Xavier Symons and published on November 2 on Bioedge.

Several academics are arguing for euthanasia for those 'weary of life'. Recent articles in the Journal of Medical Ethics push for law reform to be consistent in our ethical reasoning.

The authors - including bioethicists Julian Savulescu and Jukka Varelius - suggest that euthanasia is ultimately justified by existential suffering - a despair in life - and not some kind of physical illness. As existential suffering can come in many forms, be it a 'diagnosable' illness or non-medical despair, it should be permitted for those who, though not ill, have lost hope and have no prospect of regaining meaning in their lives.

Varelius - who does not go as far as Savulescu in calling for new legislation - identifies existential suffering as the key factor in requests for euthanasia. He considers the example of a distressed car accident victim:

"[We need to ask] whether the suffering of this particular patient is severe enough to make his life not worth living and whether there is significant hope that he after all could recover to live at least a tolerable life. Addressing these questions involves considering existential issues relating to the value of the kind of life this patient can live and the question of what degree of hope ought to be deemed significant enough."

Elder Abuse

Varelius suggests that questions of the worth, meaning and value of life are the key considerations when deciding whether to grant euthanasia. He proposes that the presence of medical illness may not be as important a consideration as we once thought it was.

In his comment on a recent BioEdge article on euthanasia in prisons, Philip Nitschke used a similar notion to argue for the inmates right to die:

"If we accept existential suffering as a valid criteria, trying to distinguish the ‘unbearable suffering’ from illness and the ‘unbearable suffering’ of incarceration is meaningless - something the resourceful and compassionate Belgium laws acknowledge."

It is clear that these academics have little to no understanding of the societal scourge of elder abuse.

Similar articles:
Euthanasia for any reason and no reason.
Dutch doctors support euthanasia for loneliness.

Conservative Party of Canada voted to protect people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

At their national policy convention in Calgary, the Conservative Party of Canada supported a resolution that the government will not support any bill that would legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The Conservative Party Calgary convention opposed the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 615 to 502. The Calgary Herald stated:

"The Conservative Party will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide. This was a motion that sparked strong debate on either side, with one delegate warning that legalized euthanasia would give doctors “the right to directly and intentionally cause your death.”

Quebec is currently debating euthanasia bill (Bill 52) that would legalize euthanasia by defining it as medical treatment. If passed, Bill 52 will need to be challenged through the court as unconstitutional because Bill 52 attempts to redefine euthanasia as medical treatment, when it actually falls within federal jurisdiction as a form of homicide. Bill 52 is a very dangerous bill.

The BC Court of Appeal recently upheld the laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide by overturning the lower court decision of Justice Smith in the Carter case. The Carter case sought to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide through the courts.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an Appeal of the BC Court of Appeal decision.

In April 2010, the federal government overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, by a vote of 228 to 59.

Hon. Peter MacKay

Justice Minister, Hon Peter MacKay recently stated that:

"The laws surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians, including those who are most vulnerable."

It is very good that the governing Conservative Party of Canada have maintained a policy of protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Up to 100 child euthanasia deaths every year with proposed change to Belgian euthanasia law.

The following article was written by Wesley Smith and published on his blog on October 31, 2013 under the title: Belgium Leaps Off Euthanasia Moral Cliff.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith - October 31, 2013

We have discussed the Belgian legislation that would open euthanasia to children more than once here at Human Exceptionalism. Now, the mainstream media is catching up. From the Washington Post story.

Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Note that the law’s supposed legal constraints are violated with impunity:

Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer, a pediatric oncologist at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels hospital, says the changes would legalize what is already happening informally. He said cases of euthanasia in children are rare and estimates about 10 to 100 cases in Belgium every year might qualify.

“Might qualify?” As a famous U.S. politician recently said, “What difference does it make?” If a case doesn’t qualify, they will kill anyway and then use their lawbreaking as the justification to further expand the law–as has been the Dutch model.

The proposal would also allow the euthanasia of dementia patients who asked to be killed before losing capacity–even if they were then happy. Talk about dictatorship of the past!

And now, we learn that Belgian euthanasia deaths have gone up 25% in one year–to 2% of all deaths. From the La Nuova Bossola story (Google translation)

Twenty-five percent.From time grew from 2011 to 2012…To make known is the Federal Commission for monitoring and evaluation of euthanasia, which broke the news that 1,432 people have asked to be killed or have been helped to take his own life in 2012, against 1,133 in 2011. This is 2% of all deaths in the country.

That would amount to about 50,000 annual U.S. medicalized killings if we had the same rate.

Add in the organ harvesting/euthanasia killings, euthanasia for elderly couples, mentally ill, and sexually exploited despairing people, and we see that Belgium has abandoned any belief in the sanctity/equality of human life.

This is the horrific logic of euthanasia: Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom.

What distinguishes Belgium is the frightening enthusiasm with which the Belgian people and doctors have embraced the killing agenda. They have leaped off a vertical moral cliff with a smile on their faces.

Belgium considering unprecedented law to grant euthanasia for children, dementia patients. 

Julius Grey: Assisted suicide is wrong and dangerous.

The following article is written by Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer, and published in the Montreal Gazette on November 1 under the title: Assisted suicide is wrong and dangerous. The opinions presented in this article are those of the author.

Julius Grey

Julius Grey, Montreal Gazette - November 1, 2013.

Support for assisted suicide has become an almost universally held belief among progressive Canadians, alongside support for unrestricted access to abortion and gender equality.

However, assisted suicide is a morally troubling idea, not comparable to the other two. We should think twice before going down that path — as Bill 52 in Quebec, which passed second reading this week, is proposing to do.

The first, purely theoretical objection is based on the notion of the sanctity of human life. Nothing is more precious than each unique person and it is impossible to recover that person once life has ceased. It is true that there are exceptions to the prohibition of killing — self-defence, security of others, warfare. Arguably, abortion is an exception — although in that case, the definition of life is not clear.

However, in all of these cases, the reasons for taking life are of overwhelming importance. It is difficult to see a comparable argument for assisted suicide.

No doubt, the impulse in favour of it is a generous one, rooted in the desire to alleviate the pain and the anguish of those in the terminal phase of life. There is also an argument based on autonomy and the right to decide by an individual who may want to end his own life. If the individual is permitted to commit suicide, why not allow him to seek help in doing so?

However, when closely examined, those arguments appear weak. Our ability to control pain and anguish is improving constantly. Very soon, pain and anguish will be substantially diminished during the process of dying. Certainly, increasing the dose of analgesic may in some cases be justified, even if there is a risk of death from this. However, that is very different from administering an avowedly lethal dose with the express purpose of terminating life.

Thus, the battle against pain and anguish does not require assisted suicide as a tool. There is no need for a new exception to the prohibition of killing and such exceptions should be made very rarely and with great reluctance.