Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
 |
| Jocelyn Downie |
When reading the media release, it appeared that this "expert panel" was assembled by long-time euthanasia advocate Jocelyn Downie. When we further investigated the panel members it was clear that when this report would be a pro-euthanasia propaganda report.
When the Royal Society of Canada announced the formation of this "expert panel", EPC suggested that they should have at least appointed members who supported euthanasia and members who opposed euthanasia and allow them to offer two equal perspectives. But this did not happen. Wesley Smith, a leading American bioethicist stated that the Royal Society panel had "stacked the deck".
Tomorrow, the Royal Society of Canada "expert panel" on end-of-life decision making will release its report.
We expect that it will suggest - for the most part - that all is fine and good with euthanasia in jurisdictions where it is legal, that there is more abuse in jurisdictions where euthanasia is illegal, that concerns about death without consent or the euthanasia of infants with disabilities or euthanasia of people with dementia are rare and overblown and that Canada, and other nations, should go ahead and legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and treat it like a form of medical treatment.
If I am accurate, it is because it is what I expected from the beginning. Simply read the EPC November 2009 newsletter.
"I am working (pro bono) on the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association challenge to the Criminal Code prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada."The BCCLA Carter case, is currently being heard in the BC courts to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.
If this report is similar to the Margaret Battin report from a few years ago, it will be designed to prove its hypothesis, and it will miss, ignore or simply write off as a non-issue any study or legitimate concern that disproves their hypothesis.
The most recent media release states that: "the Royal Society does not have an opinion on these matters." If this report were a thorough, independent and honest examination of the facts, then the Royal Society would be happy to place their seal of approval on it.
In other words, this report represents the long-held opinion of its key members.
I wonder how the "expert panel" will write off the study published last year that stated that 32% of the euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were without explicit request or consent?
What about the study published last year that stated that only 52.8% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium are reported?
What about the study by the pro-euthanasia Dutch Oncologist Marije van der Lee that was published in 2005 that showed that depressed people were 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia?
How will they discount the disability perspective? Consider the article by Marilyn Golden titled: Killing us Softly. They will probably ignore the disability perspective.
What is even more crazy is that the media is likely to treat this report as scholarly.
I am interested in reading the verbal gymnastics in this report.
4 comments:
As always, Alex Schadenberg hits the nail on the head.
Please keep up the good work Alex.
Lord Falconer (Tony Blairs ex flatmate) keeps trying to do the same thing here in the UK.
Falconer and I do not get on. I was writing to him about why he kept the family courts secret, why so many forced adoptions were taking place in the UK, of the very much wanted children of people labelled with MSBP,and why the family courts were allowing a syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome to be used in the secret family courts, when the person who invented that syndrome, a self styled psychologist called Richard Gardner was strongly advocating that there was nothing wrong with sex between a grown man and a child.
Falconer could not or would not answer my questions, and he left the MOJ and went straight to work as if he already had a job lined up with Gibson Dunn and Crutcher. They had won an award for fast track adoptions in 2006.
You would do well to examine Lord Falconers role in the euphenasia debate.
They were supposed to present a BALANCED report, outlining both sides of the issue, but apparently they did not. It's all over the news. God help us all.
Great job on TVO last night!
Post a Comment