Letter to New York Senators ie: Bill S.2445

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA Statement 

RE: New York Senate Bill S.2445 - Assisted Suicide also known as “Medical Aid in Dying”

Dear Senator:

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA supports positive measures to improve the quality of life of people, which also helps their families. We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. We are aging and disability advocates, lawyers, doctors, nurses and politicians. 

Please let S.2445 die this session, while legislators are deeply divided amid heightened concerns about inequities for people of color and those living with disability. Proponents are trying to sell you a pig in a poke. It’s not about pain or a quick, peaceful death. Instead, it spawns more suicides and provides less healthcare. EPC-USA’s physicians and disability advocates have strong opposition to Assisted Suicide.

In addition, Expansion of physician assisted suicide, as we have seen in other states is part of any Assisted Suicide legislation. 

Any safeguards are part of a deliberate bait and switch tactic by proponents to get a bill passed and then come back to amend it to gut these and other safeguards. This was openly acknowledged by J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, who was quoted on a similar bill saying, “Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.” (Link). Oregon, Washington, California, Vermont, Hawai‘i, and New Mexico all have provisions that dramatically waived any safeguards.

This incrementalist strategy is also confirmed by Compassion & Choices, who describes these changes from previous assisted suicide bills as “unnecessary” and claims they “will result in more patients being unable to access the law.”

It’s Not about Pain 

I’m often asked if I want people to die in pain. You probably have been asked that question, too. Dr. Lonny Shavelson, a California doctor who helps people die says promoting “aid in dying” as avoiding pain is a political sales pitch. See webinar minutes 25:24-27:53. He says people choose assisted suicide because they are low energy or afraid of losing control.

It’s Not about a Peaceful or Quick Death

Dr. Shavelson says the idea that assisted suicide creates a peaceful beautiful death is another myth. See webinar minutes 37:35-41:00.

No amount of bill language can change the fact that some people will suffer prolonged and agonizing deaths from the experimental lethal drug cocktails, with some even regaining consciousness only to die of their terminal illness. Medical science cannot guarantee the peaceful death proponents claim. If lethal injections administered for capital punishment have resulted in inhumane deaths, oral ingestion of lethal drug compounds is far more likely to do so.

Assisted Suicide Spawns More Suicides and Attempted Suicides.

If you enact this law, more people will die by suicide, more will attempt suicide and more will visit Emergency Departments as a result. This is the collateral damage caused by these laws. They send a message that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems. Publicity about suicide also leads to more suicides; this is called suicide contagion.

Legalization of Assisted Suicide especially impacts youths. A 2019 report found teen suicides in California increased by 34% since that state legalized Assisted Suicide in 2016. Oregon’s youth suicides increased 79.3% from 2000 to 2018. Research about completed suicides in four states that legalized Assisted Suicide (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) found it was associated with at least a 6.3% increase in the rate of all suicide deaths.

Insurance Companies Use Assisted Suicide to Deny Curative Life-Saving Treatment

Insurers stop covering certain treatments due to the availability of Assisted Suicide. Dr. Brian Callister of Nevada says he was stunned when insurance would not cover life saving treatment for his patients who were transferring to California and Oregon, but offered to pay for Assisted Suicide instead. These were people who could be cured but with the denied of treatment they are rendered terminal. In effect, Assisted Suicide is being used to shunt people off the curative, restorative medicine track, especially if they cannot afford to pay for treatments.

People of color understand this will be used to provide them poorer care. Even with insurance, people of color get poorer hospital care and pain relief according to a New York Times article. They are still disproportionately dying of COVID-19. So, it is unsurprising that Black and Latino people oppose Assisted Suicide by 2-1 margins (Link).

EPC-USA’s physicians realize the best practice for physicians to maintain the trust of the most vulnerable people groups among us (the young and old, the lonely, the disabled, the poor) is to reject Assisted Suicide.

EPC-USA physicians recognize the deadly downstream consequence: breakdown in patient/physician trust, moral injury and moral distress (lying on death certificate, assisting in suicide), suicide contagion, and (involuntary or voluntary) euthanasia.

EPC-USA Physicians reject codifying lethal and systemic disability discrimination into law.

"Federal study finds the nation's assisted suicide laws rife with dangers to people with disabilities" (Link).

EPC-USA’s Disability Rights Advocates remind us Assisted Suicide for the terminally ill very clearly normalizes discussions about whether it might be ok to help disabled people die by suicide. Without realizing it we can be blind to the reality that supporting Assisted Suicide individually and corporately is an example of ableism and perpetuates systemic racism for the poor, disabled, lonely, vulnerable and marginalized young and elderly individuals we serve. 

No change in language alters the fact that offering suicide prevention to most people while offering suicide assistance (redefined as “aid in dying”) to an ever-widening subset of disabled people is lethal disability discrimination.

Advocates of assisted suicide assert that there has never been one case of abuse related to laws legalizing assisted suicide. Setting aside the inherent flaw of making such a broad assertion, for a list of abuse cases (Link).

No language can change the deadly mix between assisted suicide and a broken health care and home care system. As the cheapest “treatment,” assisted suicide diminishes choice, and especially so for people of color, disabled people, and others who have been historically marginalized in our health care system.

No language can change the problem of misdiagnosis or the unreliability of terminal prognosis. Jeanette Hall, John Norton, and Rahamim Melamed-Cohen have outlived ostensibly terminal prognoses by decades. All three became staunch opponents of assisted suicide.

In closing, I urge you to let this bill die.

Sincerely,

Colleen E. Barry, Chair

epc_usa@yahoo.com

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA

A Warning from Canada to Hungary about Euthanasia

Dear Hungarians,

Amanda Achtman

I visited your country this time last year and was deeply impressed and inspired by it. Now that I hear Hungary is considering legalizing euthanasia, I must issue a warning to you about this from my home country of Canada.

Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide in 2016. Since then, with the criteria expanded and safeguards eroded, euthanasia now accounts for 4.1% of all deaths and is the fifth leading cause of death.

In fact, the number of Canadians who have died by euthanasia since legalization is commensurate with the total number of Canadians who died of Covid.

Having monitored the debate and expansion of euthanasia closely for the past several years, I have some important information to share with you that will hopefully prevent Hungary from going down the same path.

Euthanasia will not be limited.

Initially, euthanasia was legalized for those whose deaths were deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” Patients were required to have a “grievous and irremediable” condition. But soon, this was seen as discriminatory against those who were suffering but not imminently dying. And so, a second track (literally named “Track 2”) was created to qualify for euthanasia those whose deaths were not imminent. Initially, this was for those suffering from physical pain but then this was seen as discriminatory against those who were suffering from psychological pain. So, euthanasia was expanded to those not imminently dying and to those with psychological suffering rather than physical all under the rubric of equality. As long as euthanasia is seen as a reasonable solution to suffering, then there is no limit as to who should quality for this relief. For this reason, euthanasia activists have advised euthanasia for children who, when speaking before parliamentary committess, they refer to as “mature minors.” As soon as euthanasia is seen as a good for society and for suffering persons, any rationale to limit it will be arbitrary and considered unjust by at least some of those who are excluded by the criteria.

Euthanasia will undermine suicide prevention efforts.

Though we have gone through many euphemisms, nothing can change the reality that euthanasia is simply suicide with an accomplice. The euthanasia lobby stopped using the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide because it is bad for public relations. And so, we have gone from “euthanasia” to “assisted suicide” to “physician-assisted suicide” to “medical aid in dying.” Now in law, politics, and journalism, the English acronym for the latter is used universally. This deadens people’s consciences so that they do not realize that premature killing is precisely what is meant by “MAID.” As George Orwell said, “As language corrupts thought, so thought also corrupts language.” Many people who work in palliative care believe that palliative care is the true assistance in dying; they would never dream of killing their patients. But now, these lines are becoming blurred. Unfortunately, we now have a two-tier society where some people get suicide prevention and others get suicide assistance. This is terribly unjust because everyone deserves suicide prevention.

Euthanasia will devalue the lives of people with disabilities.

Many people with whom I speak tell me they think euthanasia is reasonable for persons with a certain illness or disability. They will usually name a particular condition that, in their mind, justifies premature death. Yet, even if they would say that euthanasia should never be coerced, suggesting that there is any threshold at which a person’s life is not worth living denigrates their life and sends the message that their life is less valuable. Furthermore, many persons with disabilities attest that they are being de facto coerced to consider euthanasia due to lack of adequate supports to live. I cannot stand by idly when my fellow citizens with disabilities attest that they are tempted to seek euthanasia because they lack housing, money for food, accesibility provisions, or even family, friends, or visitors who care about them. This is clearly an urgent cry for help, not death.

Euthanasia will threaten the doctor-patient relationship.

When a doctor raises euthanasia with a patient, it already deflates them. Simply put, it is dehumanizing to tell someone that they qualify to die. In Canada, many advocates tried to ensure that euthanasia would only ever be patient-initiated. At least, this way, patients would not be counselled to consider suicide in a moment of weakness, vulnerability, or pain. But now it is the complete opposite. Doctors are being compelled to present “MAID” as an option to all eligible patients which, as you can see, is many of them. Even if someone does not choose euthanasia for themselves, it takes a toll to even have it suggested or to know that the phsyician has euthanized other patients or referred them to their deaths. This makes it harder to trust that the doctor will truly do everything for the sake of preserving health. Euthanasia is an easy way out and, since it is legal and commonplace, there is next to no investigation of the abuses which often leaves grieving family members traumatized.

Euthanasia will cut short our opportunities to love.

Premature death cuts short the capacity to show and receive kindness in the world. Every euthanasia death short circuits our opportunities to love. And if someone is asking for euthanasia because they do not feel loved in first place, then the right response is not lazy indifference (sometimes masqueraded as “support”) but rather a loving and urgent intervention. Those who are in need make an appeal to us. It is so important that we do not miss the opportunity to respond to them. It is the very basis of our humanity to be responsible in this way -- to care and be cared for.

To avoid descending into a euthanasia society, my recommendations are to:

1. Provide the supports that people across diverse demographics need to live.
2. Bolster self-harm and suicide prevention efforts across all generations.
3. Work toward ever-better inclusion of persons with disabilities.
4. Insist on the role of doctor as healer, not killer.
5. Affirm the value of those suffering and caregiving heroically by letting them know that it’s good they exist. Notice the challenge that it is to suffer, die, and caregive well and praise those who are doing it for their courage.

Through promoting these actions and attitudes, we can create a society where dying naturally is not shameful or “undignified”, but rather a supreme occasion for realizing what is significant in life. All of this is what the dying person deserves. And for all of us, one day that dying person will be us.

Amanda Achtman recently served as the senior advisor to a Canadian parliamentarian working to prevent the expansion of euthanasia on the basis of disability and mental illness. She currently works with Canadian Physicians for Life on ethics education and cultural engagement. Amanda is also the founder of Dying to Meet You, a project dedicated to preventing euthanasia and encouraging hope.

@AmandaAchtman / DyingToMeetYou.com

The most vulnerable are falling through the cracks of Canada's euthanasia regime.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This is the Speech by Dr Leslyn Lewis MP (Haldimand-Norfold) in Canada's House of Commons on November 28, 2023 opposing Canada's MAiD (euthanasia) law.

The poor, the homeless, the abused, veterans, seniors, youth, adults suffering from disabilities, those suffering from depression, and mental health conditions.

These are among the most vulnerable in our society that are falling through the cracks of Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying regime.

They are the ones who will be at risk when the MAiD laws in Canada are expanded in March 2024.

Last years death by euthanasia increased by 30% from the year before. Every day in Canada 36 people use MAiD to end their lives, which is the highest in the world.

Last week I hosted a forum with Canadians who are disturbed by the expansion of MAiD euthanasia regime to include the mentally ill. This expansion is not about compassion it's a betrayal of the most vulnerable.

I call upon this government to reverse its course and instead provide help and hope for Canadians suffering with mental health conditions.

Thank you Dr Lewis for standing up for people with mental health conditions in Canada.

P.S. 36 euthanasia deaths every day is the highest in the world. Canada's euthanasia rate was 4.1% of all deaths in 2022 which was lower than the Netherlands euthanasia rate which was 5.1% of all deaths. Canada's population is greater than the Netherlands making 36 euthanasia deaths per day higher than the daily number of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands.

Euthanasia being forced on Montreal palliative care home.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On June 7, The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia joined with the Living with Dignity citizen network to express their great disappointment that Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care and other legislative provisions was passed in the Québec legislature.

Bill 11 expanded euthanasia in Québec in four ways including that it created an obligation for palliative care homes to offer MAiD.

Anna Farrow, reported for The Catholic Register on November 29, 2023 that:

A Montreal hospice is under pressure to perform medical assistance in dying (MAiD) contrary to the legal agreement between the Archdiocese of Montreal and the hospice.

St. Raphael Palliative Care Home and Day Centre was founded with an agreement with the Archdiocese of Montreal guaranteeing that St Raphael's would provide end-of-life care but never provide euthanasia. Farrow reported:

In 2016, Archbishop Christian Lépine and then St. Raphael Board Chair Marie-Michèle Del Balso signed a 75-year lease, beginning with an initial 25-year term and renewable for a further two such terms, and the land and buildings were transferred to the use of the centre. A significant condition of the emphyteutic lease was that the facility would offer only end-of-life care and support and never MAiD.

After a successful fundraising campaign that garnered support from several high-profile Catholic foundations and business leaders, including a donation of over $500,000 from the estate of the last priest of St. Raphael Parish, Fr. Gerald “Gerry” Sinel, St. Raphael’s opened its doors in 2019.

But the close relationship between the key players, including the Archdiocese of Montreal, leaseholder, the former St. Raphael parishioners who played a significant role in the realization of the project, and the administration of the centre may now be in jeopardy.

The euthanasia lobby is committed to forcing all religiously affiliated medical institutions to provide euthanasia. A campaign to force Catholic hospitals in British Columbia to provide euthanasia recently resulted in the British Columbia government announcing that they are building a killing center next to St Paul's hospital in Vancouver.

British Columbia government to build death center next to Catholic hospital.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

St. Paul's Hospital

The British Columbia government is building a euthanasia center next to St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver in response to a complaint that palliative care patients did not have access to euthanasia at the Catholic hospital.

Shannon Paterson reported for CTV news Vancouver on November 29 that:

The provincial government is constructing a new clinical space adjacent to St Paul's Hospital so palliative care patients who choose to undergo medical assistance in dying or MAID don’t have to be loaded into transfer vans or ambulances and driven elsewhere to get the end-of-life procedure.

On Wednesday, the province announced the construction of the new clinical space for MAID, which will not be part of the existing St Paul’s, but on adjacent property. It will be connected to the hospital with a corridor.

The euthanasia lobby is continuing its campaign to pressure the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia. Paterson reported that Jim O'Neill the father of Samantha O'Neill, who had been transferred from St. Paul's hospital to die by euthanasia, stated:

the decision to build an outside space for MAID totally absurd.

“It makes zero sense. It’s not easy access and not cost effective,” O’Neill said. “I just think it’s outrageous. I think Minister Dix completely misses the mark on this.”

I reported on June 27, 2023 that the euthanasia lobby group, Dying With Dignity, was lobbying the British Columbia (BC) government to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia.

At that time I reported that Alex Muir, the Chair of the Metro Vancouver chapter of Dying With Dignity wrote in a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun announcing their campaign to force Catholic hospitals to kill their patients rather than transfer their patients.

This is not the first time that Dying With Dignity (a registered charity) lobbied the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to kill their patients by euthanasia.

I published an article on March 8, 2022 entitled: Canada's euthanasia lobby demands that religious medical facilities kill. The euthanasia lobby wants to stop transfers of people who request euthanasia by forcing denominational medical institutions to provide euthanasia.

Australian Federal Court rules that assisted suicide is suicide under Criminal Code

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Natassia Chrysanthos reported for the Sydney Morning Herald on November 30, 2023 that Federal Court Justice Wendy Abraham ruled that:

voluntary assisted dying was considered suicide under the code, which means doctors could be charged under laws that prohibit using a carriage service – such as telehealth, email or phone calls – to incite or provide information about suicide.

The landmark decision means that doctors who approve assisted suicide via telehealth or by any other carriage service, can be charged under the federal law for inciting or providing information about suicide.

Chrysanthos reported that Nick Carr, a Melbourne doctor who brought the case to the federal court argued that:

the term suicide should not apply to voluntary assisted dying because the latter involved a legal right to intentionally take one’s life that was regulated by law.

The court disagreed and ruled that:

suicide, as used in the criminal code, applied to ending a person’s life under state voluntary assisted dying laws – meaning that doctors who consulted patients about euthanasia over the phone, email or telehealth were breaking the law, even if those actions had been authorised under state legislation.

Chrysanthos reported that a Victoria government spokesperson and the Queensland Attorney-General stated their intention of changing the law. Federal Independent MP, Kate Cheney announced that she will be introducing a Private Members bill to amend Australia's Suicide Act.

Australia's Suicide Act was amended to prevent suicide information sharing via a carriage service in order to stop Philip Nitschke from providing information and suicide advice.

Australia's federal court made the correct decision. Whether someone is counselling assisted suicide or suicide for other reasons, the act is the same.

Euthanasia cannot be "culturally safe"

Medical killing obviously undermines cultural preservation.

 

By Amanda Achtman

 

Amanda Achtman

Health Canada is currently conducting a survey of Indigenous perspectives on Canada’s euthanasia program.

These are some examples of the highly leading questions the Government is using in its attempt to solicit support for euthanasia from Indigenous respondents:

• What supports should be in place to allow Indigenous people to make decisions about MAID?
• What supports should be in place to help someone preparing for their MAID journey? What supports should be in place to help their families and caregivers?
• If you have supported or are supporting a loved one who has chosen MAID, what was your experience with the process?

The purported intent of collecting such data is to ensure “cultural safety” which the Government defines as: 

“A way of being that is created by a trusting and respectful environment. Culturally safe practices are actions in colonized spaces where Indigenous Peoples, families and communities feel respected, included, welcomed and comfortable expressing all aspects of who they are as Indigenous Peoples.”

I am reminded of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s critique of an ideological colonialism that persists today which he described as “the imposition of a false morality and deceitful values.”

Premature death through medical killing is precisely this kind of imposition.

According to a Statistics Canada report, 

“Suicide rates among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit were significantly higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people. The rate among First Nations people (24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk) was three times higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people (8.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk). Among First Nations people living on reserve, the rate was about twice as high as that among those living off reserve.”

Killing, whether through suicide or euthanasia, obviously undermines cultural preservation insofar as it destroys persons, the bearers of culture.

Despite having high rates of suicide, this is not a sign that it is an Indigenous value. On the contrary, suicide is a sign of distress, trauma, and inadequate support to live.

If Canada euthanizes Indigenous persons, this will go down in national shame like the forced sterilizations and other dehumanizing eugenic practices perpetuated due to “deceitful values.”

I hope more Indigenous persons will speak out against the Government’s euthanasia regime and the explicit targeting of First Nations support for it.

In case you missed it, I invite you to check out the short film I produced about Eulalia Running Rabbit, a Blackfoot elder, on why she opposes euthanasia.

Euthanasia: too easy for people to view death as a solution

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a member of the UK House of Lords and a Professor in palliative care, warned Scotland's government that: 'online content is promoting a “culture of death”'. Llandaff warned Scotland's government that legalizing assisted death could “gradually get eroded”, leading to “almost death in demand”.

Sophie Villegas reported for Holyrood on November 29 Baroness Finlay commenting on Canada's experience with euthanasia:

“It becomes too easy for people to view death as a solution. It's been estimated that it's about 60 hours of clinical time to really process a request properly. Well, I would prefer that you spend 60 hours of clinical time improving people's quality of life… We need to be saying that people's lives are important. We need to help them live as well as possible for as long as possible,” she added.

“It would be wonderful if every doctor, every nurse, was well-motivated. But goodness me, we have seen disasters in this country of people abusing their position, to say the least, and almost clocking into a culture of death, which is dangerous."

Scotland is once again debating the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The text of legislation has not yet been released. Scotland's parliament last voted on the issue in 2022.

Hungary's government opposes assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dániel Karsai, an Hungarian who lives with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought a case to European Court of Human Rights this week to challenge Hungary's laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Daily News Hungary reported on November 29, 2023 that the Hungarian government intervened in the case by opposing any changes to their laws. According to Daily News Hungary the Hungarian Justice Ministry told the European Court of Human Rights that:

The ministry said Hungary considered "unacceptable" all decisions and aspirations which "enable others to end a person's life".

The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary's constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary's constitution nor international law, including the ECHR guarantee the right to die, it argued.

The Karsai case has been promoted by the euthanasia lobby and at least one assisted suicide group in Switzerland.

Previous article: Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court (Link).

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court

The following press release is from ADF International on November 28, 2023.

• Dániel Karsai, Hungarian national suffering from progressive neurodegenerative condition, seeks legalization of assisted suicide in Hungary before European Court of Human Rights in oral hearing today.
•  ADF International intervenes, arguing that Hungary is obligated to protect the right to life; there is no “right to die”.
  

Strasbourg (28 November 2023) – Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought his challenge to Hungary’s ban on assisted suicide before the European Court of Human Rights today. Assisted suicide is illegal under Hungarian law, as in the overwhelming majority of countries.

ADF International intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life.

In its submission to the Court, the legal advocacy organization highlights the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explains: “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources.”

“We cannot abandon our essential human rights protections.”

“While Mr. Karsai’s condition demands our greatest compassion, we cannot abandon our essential human rights protections. Hungary is bound under European and international human rights law to safeguard human life,” stated Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International, present at the Court’s oral hearing in Strasbourg on 28 November.

“The right to life is inviolable, underlying all other human rights. Conversely, there is no so-called ‘right to die’. Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. And assisted suicide inevitably results in human rights-violating coercion on medical professionals and others to end human life. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented, and the same stance must apply with regard to assisted suicide. Killing someone can never be the solution,” continued Van De Walle.

The Court, which granted this case priority, is expected to deliver its decision on an expedited timeline.

Seeking a “right” to die

Karsai, 46, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), wishes to resort to assisted suicide before his physical condition further deteriorates. It is a criminal offence in Hungary to help somebody end their life, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintains that even if he were to die by assisted suicide outside of Hungary, the Hungarian Criminal Code would apply to anyone assisting him.

Safeguarding the right to life

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, has highlighted to the Court that there is no so-called “right to die” but, in fact, a clear right to life. This position, in line with both European and international human rights law, underscores the dangers that would ensue from forcing Hungary to allow assisted suicide, highlighting that the intentional taking of human life can never be safe.

The European Court of Human Rights also recognised these dangers in the October 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium, in which the applicant was represented by ADF International. In this case, the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Godelieva De Troyer. The Court condemned Belgium because of “the lack of independence of the Control Commission,” which for over twenty years has presided over the practice of euthanasia in Belgium and supposedly acts as the ‘guardian’ of the legal safeguards.

As stated in the Karsai submission: “Despite alleged ‘safeguards’ and a ‘strict’ legal framework, young adults are euthanised because of ‘incurable depression,’ elderly people because of symptoms related to ageing, prisoners because of lack of access to appropriate mental health care or because of psychological suffering, twins because of becoming blind – to mention only some examples, among many others”.

Legalisation leads to abuses

Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. The practice has been rejected by legislators in the vast majority of countries.

The World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.

In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

“Once we as a society open the doors to intentional killing, there is no logical stopping point. How do we distinguish between the person we talk down from the bridge and the person we let die at the hands of their doctor? The state has an obligation to protect the fundamental value of human life, and we cannot set in motion legal changes that undermine this obligation to the detriment of all of society,” noted Van De Walle.

Portugal's government will defer regulations for euthanasia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Portugal's Parliament

Natasha Donn reported for the Portugal Resident on November 24, that Portugal's government will defer implementing regulations for euthanasia until after the next election, scheduled for March 10, 2024.

According to the report by Donn:

health minister Manuel Pizarro has announced. Effectively dodging another ‘thorny’ issue (having already ditched talks with striking doctors, again because of the elections), the minister told Lusa that “the process of regulating the law is under development and will be an integral part of the transition dossier”.

The Portugal News reported on May 12 that Portugal's parliament overturned President de Sousa's veto of the euthanasia bill:

Parliament has today confirmed the decree on medically assisted death, which had been vetoed by the President of the Republic, with a total of 129 votes in favour, forcing its promulgation.

On March 31, The Portugal Resident reported that Portugal's Parliament passed a fourth euthanasia bill with two of the previous bills being declared unconstitutional by Portugal's Constitutional Court and a third bill being vetoed by President de Sousa. The current bill permitted assisted suicide, but persons with disabilities who would have difficulty self-administering assisted suicide could die by euthanasia.

Lancet report: Healthcare sector supported the Nazi euthanasia program

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have always been told that any reference to the Nazi euthanasia program is a sign of extremism. This article is not comparing the modern euthanasia program to the euthanasia program in Nazi Germany, but rather it is an investigation into the Nazi euthanasia program. The Lancet Commission on medicine, Nazism and the Holocaust released their report on November 8, 2023.

Nazi doctors, Nuremburg

A commentary on the findings of the Lancet Commission in relation to the Nazi euthanasia program was published on November 15, 2023 by Healthworld.com stating that:

Medical atrocities during the Nazi era were not solely carried out by "a few extremist doctors" or perpetrators that acted "under coercion", according to a report published by the Lancet Journal.

The Healthworld commentary continued:

Vienna: Medical professionals played a "central role" in the crimes committed by the Nazis, according to a new study published Thursday (November 8), which aims to debunk "long-held misconceptions" about the scale of their involvement.

By 1945, between 50 to 65 percent of non-Jewish German doctors had joined the Nazi party, which represents a "much higher proportion than in any other academic profession," said the 73-page report.

The abhorrent eugenics and euphemistically termed "euthanasia" murder programmes of the Nazis during World War II resulted in "at least 230,000" deaths, including 7,000 to 10,000 children.

The article explains that the Nazi eugenics programme became a pseudo-science and the research conducted during that era continues to effect science today.

The article points out that the research by the famed Austrian anatomist Eduard Pernkopf was derived from Nazi victims. Pernkopf's anatomy atlas was widely used into the 1990's. The past of the founder of German juvenile psychiatry, Elisabeth Hecker, remained unknown until 1995 when it was uncovered that she had ordered the transfer of children to the local killing units.

It is a known fact that the method of gassing people in the Nazi extermination camps was developed between 1939 and 1941 in an effort to kill tens of thousands of institutionalised mental health patients. In other words, the technique of gassing people in the extermination camps was developed by the Nazi euthanasia program.

Healthcare World reported that the Lancet study recommended:

...the study of medicine under Nazism and the Holocaust should be incorporated in health care curricula, as the lack of knowledge "apart from a vague notion of Josef Mengele's experiments in Auschwitz" today is "often surprising".

Healthcare World stated that:

The report was carried out as part of a Lancet Commission that brought together a group of 20 international experts for the first time to examine the history of medicine.

Previous articles on this topic:

• Berlin Memorial to the victims murdered by the T4 euthanasia program (Link).
• Contemporary euthanasia program is an updated version of the early 20th Century eugenics (Link).

Medical atrocities during the Nazi era were not solely carried out by "a few ext ..

Read more at:
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/healthcare-sector-rallied-behind-nazis-to-create-euthanasia-programmes-that-claimed-at-least-230000-victims-says-a-new-study/105237995

Medical atrocities during the Nazi era were not solely carried out by "a few ext ..

Read more at:
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/healthcare-sector-rallied-behind-nazis-to-create-euthanasia-programmes-that-claimed-at-least-230000-victims-says-a-new-study/105237995

Medical atrocities during the Nazi era were not solely carried out by "a few ext ..

Read more at:
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/healthcare-sector-rallied-behind-nazis-to-create-euthanasia-programmes-that-claimed-at-least-230000-victims-says-a-new-study/105237995

Medical atrocities during the Nazi era were not solely carried out by "a few ext ..

Read more at:
https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/healthcare-sector-rallied-behind-nazis-to-create-euthanasia-programmes-that-claimed-at-least-230000-victims-says-a-new-study/105237995

Book: Therefore Choose Life—My Journey from Hopelessness to Hope

This book is an Amazon best seller.

Earlier this year, Tyler Dunlop gained international attention for all the wrong reasons. He was the ‘Homeless, hopeless Orillia man’ who was seeking euthanasia. Now, he hopes to make a similar impact for all the right reasons. On November 17th, his book Therefore Choose Life—My Journey from Hopelessness to Hope is being published.

Therefore Choose Life is available from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for $20 for 1 book or $50 for 3 books (+$5 for shipping per book). 

Order the book with this link (Order Link) or call the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348.

Joe Roberts, “The Skid Row CEO,” and the author of several books, says of Therefore Choose Life:

“This book has the honesty of Charles Bukowski and the insight of Richard Wagamese. But it’s neither. It’s all Tyler Dunlop, and it’s a masterpiece.” 

Paul Copan, an American human rights scholar who teaches ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida, writes of Tyler’s book:

“This is a powerful, well-told, and uplifting story!” Rev. Dr. John Hamilton, a practicing psychologist, says, “Tyler's book is forthright, frank, gripping, and emotionally riveting!”

In his chapter ‘Canada’s Inferno,’ Tyler—like the ancient Roman poet Virgil in            Dante’s Inferno, who guides Dante through hell—escorts the reader through a           different hell: the drug culture in Main and East Hastings in East Vancouver. It        is probably the most powerful piece of writing you will ever read on the subject.

        Here is an excerpt from it:

“When, the next day, I walked down East Hastings Street, the smell of old and new urine hung in the air like the spectre of old pain that showed in the pale, drawn, scabbed faces of the lost souls stumbling by. Garbage, used condoms, needles and cigarette butts were strewn around. The sound of shopping carts, commandeered by scavengers, shook and rattled. They contained anything the many dumpsters in the endless alleys had to offer, such as old printers and cheap paintings. Empty aluminum cans, rattling in bags tied to the sides of the carts, were a kind of chime. The sound of honking horns and obscenities filled the air. Down an alley, I saw open sex acts. Gaunt hooded figures ducked behind dumpsters. Their crack smoke curled up and rose into the sky like mythological dragons before disappearing with the wind. People slept on the sidewalks with needles still stuck in their arms. Graffiti messages—the names and sentiments of people probably long dead—defaced the storefronts. The loud caws of crows on the rooftops and sagging hydro lines added to the nightmarish scene. A small group of men and women looked barely human as, hunched over, they looked for pebbles of crack they had dropped. A buck-naked young man smashed his head against a wall and screamed profanities.”

“One time, the drug frenzy stopped as some guy started flying a toy helicopter remotely. The whole mass just stopped and looked up at the toy. As they did so, a beam of warm sun pierced through the clouds, and for the briefest of moments, amidst the backdrop of obscenities, all our collective pain did not exist.”

Therefore Choose Life deals with other “dark” subjects such as alcoholism, homelessness, and mental illness. The book explores such “light” topics as God, grace, and hope.

The book begins with the chapter, ‘The MAID Who Kills.’ It speaks of Tyler’s decision to seek MAID, discusses how he changed his mind on the subject, and ends with a scathing critique of the Canadian government’s legalization of this practice. In this and other chapters, Tyler attacks this policy as being utterly without moral justification.

Vera Petrovic, a retired psychiatrist, says:

“We live in a ‘culture of death.’ Euthanasia is taking advantage of the physical and mental pain of people too broken to fight and then calling it ‘death with dignity.’ What it is, is society ridding itself of ‘undesirables.’ God did not allow it in the past, and He will not allow it now. He will send those devoted to His service, those He has placed in His war against the ‘culture of death.’ He will send people like Tyler, pulling himself up to choose life despite every insurmountable personal challenge.”

I also believe that God has raised up Tyler to speak against MAID. But don’t take our word for it. Buy the book and decide for yourself.

Article: Homeless man seeks death by euthanasia. He feels hopeless (Link).