Assisted suicide in America. Predictions for 2021.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

As 2021 begins, it is important to prepare for what may happen.

We predict that assisted suicide bills will be introduced in at least 20 states and some states that legalized assisted suicide will debate bills to expand their assisted suicide laws, in 2021.

In 2020, many states debated assisted suicide bills but most of those bills died on the order paper. Some of the assisted suicide bills died on the order paper because the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily shut down state legislatures.

We are very concerned about possible assisted suicide bills in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico and New York, among others.

Links to key articles for fighting assisted suicide:

• A patient's journey. If we jumped on the death train, that man would have died (Link).
• Assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be (Link).
  
• 12 myths about assisted suicide and Medical Aid in Dying (Link).
• Oregon 2019 assisted suicide report (Link).
• The Netherlands to extend euthanasia to children (Link).
• Be careful what you wish for when you legalize killing (Link).
• Assisted suicide deaths may not be quick or peaceful (Link).
• Assisted suicide doctor conducts human experiments in killing people (Link).
• Prolonged painful deaths and assisted suicide lethal drug experiments (Link).
• Hawaii assisted suicide report urges removal of safeguards (Link).
• Dr Anne Hanson's testimony opposing assisted suicide (Link).
• Pressured to die by assisted death (Link).
• Assisted suicide by telehealth and medical misdiagnosis (Link).
• There is no effective oversight of assisted suicide laws (Link).
• The assisted suicide lobby plans to eliminate safeguards (Link).
• Psychiatrists must prevent suicide not provide it (Link).
• Federal study finds assisted suicide laws are rife with dangers to people with disabilities (Link).

States that have legalized assisted suicide will likely debate bills to expand those laws.

In January 2019 I commented on an article by the CEO of Compassion & Choices, (formerly known as the Hemlock society) who stated that assisted suicide laws need fewer regulations.

In Oregon, the number of assisted suicide deaths increased to 188 reported deaths in 2019. In 2019 Oregon passed Bill SB 0579 which came into effect on January 1, 2020, which essentially eliminated the 15 day waiting period. There were other Oregon assisted suicide expansion bills debated in 2019, that may return in 2021.

In Washington state the legislature debated Bill 2419 states a study bill to examine the elimination of "safeguards" in assisted suicide laws. Section f of the bill questioned the need to self-administer lethal drugs. If lethal drugs are not self-administered then someone else must administer, thus legalizing euthanasia.

The Hawaii 2019 assisted suicide report indicated that 15 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in 2019. The report also included preliminary 2020 data indicating that in the first few months of 2020, 13 people reportedly died by assisted suicide.

In the final paragraph of the assisted suicide report the Hawaii Department of Health recommends the following changes to the assisted suicide law:

Waiver of any waiting periods if the attending provider and consulting provider agree that patient death is likely prior to the end of the waiting periods.

Given access to health care providers is limited, the DOH recommends authorizing advance practice registered nurses to serve as attending providers for patients seeking medical aid in dying.

The Hawaii Department of Health recommendations follow the direction of the assisted suicide lobby.

For those who are organizing to stop assisted suicide in their State EPC suggests the following: 

• Refer to assisted suicide, and stay away from politically motivated language. 
• focus on how assisted suicide is done. The assisted suicide lobby is experimenting with new drug combinations as they attempt to find cheaper lethal drug cocktails.
• Assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be. Focus on what the bill actually says, rather than focusing on the theory of assisted suicide. 
• In 2020, several of the assisted suicide bills permitted euthanasia or used undefined language enabling the legislation to be interpreted in a wider manner, while other bills ignored conscience rights for medical professionals.

Defeating assisted suicide bills requires a complete analysis of the bill, outlining the problems with the bill. All of these bills are designed to expand over time.

Emphasize what assisted suicide is and how it is done and discuss how the assisted suicide lobby is conducting unethical lethal drug experiments. They speak about compassion and choices and yet they have caused some horrific deaths.

Work together. All perspectives are important, but stay focused on your goal, that being, protecting people from assisted suicide.

Euthanasia Bill C-7: A palliative care pioneer doctor responds.

By Dr. Sydney Grant

The headline reads “Bill C-7 removes “reasonably foreseeable death” as a requirement for MAID” - where one’s death had to be foreseeable 4 years before, MAID (Medical Aid in Dying) or euthanasia resulted from a law passed in 2016 called Bill C-14, there was a new law. 

Bill C-7 resulted from Justice Baudouin of Quebec’s Superior Court striking down the federal prohibition on physician-assisted dying arguing that the old law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by only allowing MAiD for people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable and therefore was unconstitutional. Hard to believe but Quebec was protesting that since it was only those who were about to die that “benefited” from this law and that was unconstitutional. Parliament could have appealed this terrible decision or narrowly amend the law to abide by Quebec’s decision. They didn’t. 

Since Bill 14, more than 14,000 people have been killed by MAID. Bill C-7 proposes to remove that requirement that a person’s death is foreseeably foreseeable. People with disabilities and those who live with psychological pain are now prime candidates for euthanasia, if they so desire. Exhaustive efforts at life-saving, restorative or pain alleviating therapies would no longer be necessary. It could create situations where disabled people could be offered a MAID death instead of being offered those other supports to live a healthy and fulfilling life. 

One former city counselor from Invermere, BC, Spring Hawes, who has a spinal cord injury and uses a wheelchair, has said 

“Rather than funding and making life a possible and viable choice for many people, we’re entertaining the option of asking them if they would like to die, and it’s very scary.” 

Hawes points out that two thirds of disabled people live in poverty, or can’t afford their medications. They suffer violence at higher rates than the able-bodied population and many don’t have accessible housing or transportation. Studies show when offered these supports, people with disabilities report having a very high standard and satisfaction with their quality of life. In her own case, a few months after she suffered her spinal cord injury Hawes said that she couldn’t move her arms and had a feeding tube. She says that if someone had come and offered her MAID at that point that she would have taken it. More than 300 disability groups in Canada oppose the change in the law.

Although “mental illness” will not be considered a diagnosis for consideration of MAID, “psychological suffering” is. Now as a physician, even I cannot deduce what that means.

“Depression” can be a very obtuse diagnosis – from “bad hair days” to “manic depression” - the former mild and brief states of sadness to intense states that are so severe as to cause bouts of consideration of committing suicide – to actually suiciding. At times it can be called “psychological suffering”, a permissible diagnosis for euthanasia but it may not be permissible if it is “manic depression” or as it is called now “bipolar disorder” – a “mental disorder.” The diagnosis depends on the presence of associated mania which often involves hallucinations, psychosis, grandiose delusions or paranoid rage. It would take a difficult decision process to differentiate the ordinary depression from that other aspect – the bipolar aspect or “manic depression.”

There was a waiting period under the 2016 law. Patients with a foreseeable death could have 10 days in which to change their mind. Bill C-7 would amend the Criminal Code to permit MAID for individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable to have 90 days to reassess. For those whose death is foreseeable, the 10 day assessment period is waived. If one was convinced enough on the first day of the request of their need for death, as the Bill now stands, death could be administered on that day.

Only one independent witness, rather than two will be necessary for the signing of permission for the procedure for those with foreseeable death. For individuals whose natural death is not foreseeable there would be a 90 day assessment period, a second eligibility assessment by a practitioner, with expertise in the condition that is causing the person’s suffering, is necessary and two clarifications of informed consent.  

Although not requested by the Bill, in the case of consideration by disabled individuals considering euthanasia, testimony of those countless people with acquired physical disabilities in the past who have come to a position of acceptance must be considered. The offering of already initiated or continued physiotherapy, although seemingly slow, must be continued. The example of similar others who are living a productive life in a state of reasonable contentment must serve as an inducement to continue even maintenance therapy.

In the case of terminal illness where death is foreseen rather than cure, the offer of palliative care must be considered. It is offered in almost all hospitals either in a separate unit or as part of the “medical” service. 

This writer was involved in the first such palliative care unit at the Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital in the late 1980's and until 2012. The evidence for the efficacy of medications given appropriately for pain, nausea and shortness of breath control in terminal illnesses is an accepted fact now. Patients are managed for such symptoms until a state of comfort is reached until the patient dies or can be discharged to home. Or if that is not possible, the patient can continue to be cared for on the Palliative Care Service until death occurs. Family involvement is a major part of this care – at least until such an event like the present pandemic occurs, and then home care becomes even more necessary and strived for. 

We have a great home-care service in New Brunswick, the Extra-Mural Hospital (EMP) also known as “the hospital without walls,” All of the necessary services, eg. Nurses, including practical nurses, Social Workers, Respiratory Therapists, Dietitians, etc. are all available under EMP. Such care allows the family relief from the worry involving the practical matters of a sick loved one at home. The relationships within the family that were so present throughout the life of the patient are allowed to go on – even during a crisis like the Covid – 19 pandemic. The concern about symptom control is lessened as a result of stabilization of these symptoms during a hospital stay or, if needed still, in the home.

The ability to remember great memories of the past; to relate more significantly than before; to take part again in family conversations; perhaps to laugh again over funny past or current occurrences and to express love for one another – all are part of the continuation of a life that will be abbreviated in a near future. Cutting all of this short by an earlier “planned” death may happen with attendant lack of assurance of the rightness of the decision and possible guilt on the part of family members who may have been involved in the decision. This will result often in a sense in those closest that maybe this period of “final things” has been missed – that so much that should have been said was not said and therefore there really is not “finality” – only “unfinished business”. 

The drawing back together in difficult broken relationships is very necessary when a death is near in a family or a friendship. If not allowed to go on the grief is only enhanced perhaps by prolonged guilt long after the death. These are the reasons that nobody can deny the necessary process of living and allowing others to live until the end. Others might criticize us who oppose euthanasia on the basis of ethics or faith – it is difficult to criticize on the basis of love and caring.

Dr. Sydney Grant is a pioneer in palliative care in New Brunswick Canada.

Popular 2020 articles on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the bill to expand euthanasia in Canada dominate the 15 most popular articles on euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2020.

1. (a). Guide to answering the Canadian MAiD consultation questionnaire (Link). (b) Canadian MAiD consultation questionnaire was a sham (Link).
2. Sign and share the petition opposing child euthanasia (Link).
3. Stop Bill C-7 that permits euthanasia for psychiatric conditions and incompetent people (Link).
4. Participate in the Canadian MAiD euthanasia consultation (Link).
5. 90-year-old woman dies by (MAiD) euthanasia rather than go through another COVID-19 lockdown (Link).
6. Five reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide (Link).
7. Assisted suicide by telehealth and medical misdiagnosis (Link).
8. Stealth euthanasia. How many seniors with Covid-19 were killed? (Link).
9. EPC: Stop Bill C-7 from expanding Canada's euthanasia law (Link).
10. Hundreds of sick Canadians euthanized for loneliness (Link).
11. Candice Lewis died a natural death (RIP). Candice made a difference in the world (Link).
12. EPC needs your help in court case to prevent wrongful euthanasia death (Link).
13. Woman asks for assisted suicide based on COVID-19 isolation (Link).
14. Dutch doctor who euthanized woman with dementia, who resisted, says just do it (Link).
15. COVID-19 triage guidelines and nursing home deaths (Link).

Popular articles (all time) concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide (Link).

Portugal: MP's plan to vote on euthanasia bill in early January.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On February 20, 2020 the Portuguese Parliament voted on five different proposals to legalize euthanasia. Every proposals passed, even though two years ago, similar proposals were defeated. The parliament is now debating one euthanasia bill.

The Portugal news reported yesterday that the parliament is in the final stages of debating the euthanasia bill and is expected to have a final vote on January 8, 2021. The article states:

The conclusion of the vote, article by article, of the euthanasia law has been set for the first few days in January, and MPs are aiming to have the final global vote on the 8th.

In July I reported that the Portuguese Medical Association opposes euthanasia and informed the government that they will not be permit doctors to participate on the euthanasia commission (the commission to approve euthanasia). At the same time, a group of 15 law professors, including Professor Jorge Miranda, known as the father of Portugal's Constitution, stated that the euthanasia bills are unconstitutional.

President Marcelo de Sousa

President Marcelo de Sousa has indicated that he may veto the euthanasia bill but the situation is complicated by the fact that Portugal's Presidential election is on January 24, 2021. 

Last week I reported that Spain's lower house passed a euthanasia bill by a vote of 198 to 138 (2 abstained). The bill will now be debated by the Spanish Senate.

 The Portuguese socialist government has been pushing to legalize euthanasia for several years. Portugal needs to commit to improving care not approving killing.

Conscience, Dignity and Good Medical Practice.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by a group of Canadian physicians on conscience rights was published in the December 2020 issue of the World Medical Journal. The article titled: The Declaration of Geneva: Conscience, Dignity and Good Medical Practice starts on page 41 of the World Medical Journal and emphasizes the importance of conscience rights in the practice of medicine. I have limited my article to a few key points:

Conscience rights enable peaceful and productive relationships within a pluralistic society. The article states:

Agreement on foundational principles does not eliminate disagreements, since people hold differing reasonable comprehensive world views leading to different ethical theories, like deontology, consequentialism, principlism and virtue ethics. Recognition of rational moral pluralism enables people to live peacefully and productively with these differences, and this is best ensured by robust protection of freedom of thought, of conscience and of religion, all recognized in Article 18 of the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Under the section - preservative freedom of conscience - the article recognizes how conscience rights protect physicians and patients. It states:

Refusing to act wrongfully is foundational for the individual and society, contributes substantially to social stability and is the necessary but not sufficient condition for perfective freedom of conscience. It is essential for ethical medical practice because it protects personal and professional integrity and can be the ultimate safeguard for patients.

Forcing a physician to go against their conscience treats them like a government "agent" and causes them to leave their field of medicine. The article states:

For example, a palliative care physician, succumbing to fear of professional discipline, referred a patient for euthanasia. She described the experience as “destructive to my very core.” Haunted for months by the memory, she doubted she could continue in palliative care.  

There is a further point. When the state forces physicians to do what they believe to be wrong it demands the submission of intellect, will, and conscience to serve ends they find morally abhorrent. They are treated as cogs in the state machine,

The article asserts that conscience rights require a moral freedom that enables the goal of treating the other the same as one would treat oneself. The article states:

Thus, to practise “with conscience” is to treat the other as oneself: to impartially care for patients to the best of one’s ability, applying “scientific methods allied with the spirit of charity and service”: to provide for their bodily needs, relieve suffering, prolong human life and prevent disease: to defend fundamental human rights and respect patients’ human dignity and “moral freedom”. Further, recognition of a patient as another self-obliges physicians to prevent and resist harm to patients, and makes deliberately harming them an especially egregious offence.

This group of physicians also had an article published in the September 2020 issue of the World Medical Journal titled: Practising medicine with conscience and dignity (Link).

Sean Murphy,
Administrator Protection of Conscience Project
British Columbia Canada

Dr. Ramona Coelho,
MDCM, CCFP

Dr. Philippe D. Violette, MSc.
MDCM, FRCSC
Assistant Professor Depts. of Surgery and Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Ewan C Goligher MD PhD
Assistant Professor
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto

Timothy Lau, MD, FRCPC
Distinguished Teacher, Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine,
Department of Psychiatry, Geriatrics, Royal Ottawa Hospital.

Sheila Rutledge Harding,
MD, MA, FRCPC Hematology
Saskatchewan Health Authority
Professor, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Will Portugal legalize euthanasia in 2021?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week I reported that Spain's lower house passed a euthanasia bill by a vote of 198 to 138 (2 abstained). The bill will now be debated by the Spanish Senate.

In February, the Portugal Parliament voted on five proposals to legalize euthanasia. All of the proposals passed, even though two years ago, similar proposals were defeated.

The Portuguese government was planning to propose a single euthanasia bill until parliament dissolved due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After parliament returned the government announced that they would resume the euthanasia debate.

President Marcelo de Sousa

The Portugal news is reporting that the euthanasia law will likely be voted on in January 2021. The caveat is that President de Sousa has indicated that he may veto the euthanasia bill. What further complicates the issue is that Portugal's Presidential election is January 24, 2021.

Last July I reported that the Portuguese Medical Association is against euthanasia and informed the government that doctors will not be permitted to participate on the euthanasia commission (the commission to approve euthanasia). At the same time, a group of 15 law professors, including Professor Jorge Miranda, known as the father of Portugal's Constitution, stated that the euthanasia bills are unconstitutional.

The Portuguese socialist government has been pushing to legalize euthanasia. Portugal needs to commit to improving care not approving killing.

Stop telling people with disabilities they might be better off dead

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Toronto Star published an excellent article on December 21, 2020 by Lisa Bendall, a disability leader and former editor of Abilities Magazine.

Lisa Bendall

Bendall's article concerns Bill C-7, the bill to expand euthanasia in Canada, and its effect on people with disabilities. Bill C-7 is currently being debated by Canada's Senate. Bendall explains:

Senators are currently deliberating Bill C-7, which would allow assisted suicide for people who aren’t near death. Not all people, mind you; just people who happen to have disabilities. While many of us fear that this bill might steer vulnerable people toward an untimely death, others argue that that’s a paternalistic viewpoint, and that the law would have built-in protections.

But think on this. People with disabilities are constantly bombarded with the subtle and not-so-subtle message that it’s better to be dead than disabled. We know from experience that this has an impact on the way people are treated in public, in private and in health care.

Bendall writes about her friend, Audrey King:

Toronto’s Audrey King, who lives with the effects of polio, was hospitalized with pneumonia in 2018. While she was fighting for her life, her PSW overheard two nurses talking: “This is cruel. Why can’t they just let her go?” King, an artist and retired psychologist, is convinced no one would speak that way of a patient without a disability. “My life has been rich and full,” she says. “I’ve achieved far more than most ‘upright’ people, thanks to all the support I’ve had.”

She then tells a personal story about her husband:

When my husband Ian was hospitalized in 2018 for a fairly benign problem, he unexpectedly had complications that led to cardiac arrest and ventilation. Because of his weak muscles — he’s quadriplegic from a decades-old spinal cord injury — he needed a tracheotomy in order to come off the ventilator gradually, building back his stamina.

A doctor new to his case came to meet us — and to tell Ian that even with the surgery, he might never get off the ventilator. We knew that already. To our horror, the doctor then matter-of-factly suggested another option: Ian could skip the tracheotomy, have the ventilator removed instead, and be kept comfortable as he died.

We were stunned that a doctor charged with my husband’s care could so blatantly disregard his life, even one in which he potentially used a ventilator (as a couple of our friends did). It hadn’t crossed Ian’s mind to give up; he had a loving family and was starting his retirement. “From that moment on, I was afraid of having this man as my doctor,” he says. Incidentally, Ian was back home, healthy, within weeks.

Candice Lewis

Bendall continues with the story of Candice Lewis:

Candice Lewis of Newfoundland had a similarly traumatic experience in 2016, according to CBC News. While the young woman with disabilities was sick in hospital, she overheard a doctor telling her mother that assisted suicide was an option. Mother and daughter were shocked.

Bendall gets to the crux of the issue:

Why single out people with disabilities as the only nondying Canadians who can choose assisted suicide, as Bill C-7 proposes to do? Most people with suicidal feelings are given treatment, not MAID, even if they feel that their situation — poverty, loneliness, depression — makes life unbearable.

Furthermore, until people with disabilities have proper access to supports, it’s unconscionable to provide them with a direct path to death. Anyone who is housebound because of a lack of transportation, in pain because they can’t afford therapies, lonely because their housing is far from loved ones, or suffering from PSW shortages is more likely to feel suicidal.

Here’s another consideration: Some people who are new to having a disability may believe their emotional turmoil will never ease. Yet they may later go on to live a full, rewarding life. Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski, a physician, voted against C-7 for this reason, saying, “Morally, it’s incumbent upon me to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death.”

If this legislation passes, there is a strong chance it will result in needless deaths and great losses to society. That makes it a dangerous bill indeed.

Links to other articles concerning Bill C-7

• Canada sees it as merciful to let me die, instead of providing me with what I need to live (Link).  
• Cheryl Lowen and Alan Nichols died by MAiD (euthanasia), even though they didn't qualify to be killed (Link). 
• Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators (Link).
  

 

Canada sees it as a mercy to let me die, instead of providing me with what I need to live.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Spring Hawes

CTV National News medical correspondent Avis Favaro, produced an insightful program on (MAiD) euthanasia. 

Favaro interviews a woman, who is not dying, but wants to die by euthanasia, two women with disabilities who explain why Bill C-7 threatens their lives, a doctor who cares for people with disabilities and the chief executive of a euthanasia lobby group. 

Favaro starts her news report by introducing the debate:

The agony that Cheryl Romaire lives with is so debilitating that some days, she feels her body “might actually just physically die from the pain.” Marie -- not her real name -- also lives with multiple disabilities, pain, nerve degeneration, neuropathy, and has trouble walking and standing.

Both are fighting a life-and-death battle over a bill that will change Canada’s assisted dying laws -- but from opposing positions.

Romaire, who requested euthanasia in the past, but was turned down because she is not dying, hopes that Bill C-7 will enable her to be killed. Marie says that:

the bill as it stands is dangerous and opens the door for medically assisted death to become an acceptable -- and even easier -- option for vulnerable people with disabilities who would otherwise not choose to die if they had the support and means necessary to live with dignity.

Marie believes that based on Bill C-7:

“Canada sees it as a mercy to let me die, instead of providing me with what I need to live...instead of making it easier for me to raise my child.”

Marie is not alone, Favaro reports that Spring Hawes who became a tetrapligic following a spinal cord injury 15 years ago shares Maria's concerns about Bill C=7. Hawes said:

“It has the potential to create a separate class of people who, for them suicide is a valid, normalized option and that's really scary for vulnerable people,” said Hawes, who co-founded the group Dignity Denied.

Hawes told Favaro, that with only a 90 day waiting period for people who are not dying, that there is an excellent chance that she would not be alive today had euthanasia been legal 15 years ago.

Dr Ramona Coelho

Maria and Spring Hawes concerns are confirmed by Dr Ramona Coelho, a family doctor in London, Ont. who is with MAiD to MAD (Medical Assistance in Dying becomes Medically Administered Death), which has collected more than 1,100 signatures from doctors opposed to the change in the law. Coelho says that many of her own patients are refused homecare supports and do not have certain medications covered.

“All of these things can create a sense of tension, a sense of hopelessness,”

“That disparity in care and resources is going to leave certain patients, extremely vulnerable and feel that they don't have a choice, except to choose death.”

Favaro ends the segment with Hawes stating that

“This is life and death. So if we're not absolutely 100 per cent clear about what we're doing and how it will affect the most vulnerable people in our society, we have to choose the option of life and supporting life,”

Contact the Senators by mail or email. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator
Senate of Canada
Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

Euthanasia Bill C-7 is delayed until February 2021

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with two Liberals voting against the Bill on December 10, Justice Minister Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec to extend the time-frame to February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. The Superior court of Quebec granted the federal government the extension.

*Join more than 50,000 people by signing and sharing the EPC Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link). 

 
The Canadian Press reported on December 17 that the Senate will not vote on Bill C-7 until mid-February:

Senate, Sen. Marc Gold, concedes that the upper house won’t finish its consideration of Bill C-7 until mid-February — long past the previous court-imposed deadline that was set to expire Friday.

Article: Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators (Link).

Senator Denise Batters

Dale Smith reported in an article published in the CBA National on December 14 stated that Senator Denise Batters, the Deputy Chair of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional affairs committee, is not in a hurry to pass Bill C-7 and recognizes that amendments to Bill C-7 may be necessary:

Conservative Senator Denise Batters, a lawyer and former chief of staff to the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan, ...says that she is most concerned that the bill potentially violates the Section 15 Charter rights of persons with disabilities, and with the removal of the 10-day waiting period.

"The lower court Truchon decision struck down the requirement for a 'reasonably foreseeable' death in order to access assisted dying," says Batters. "It did not call for the removal of safeguards around the practice. Yet Justice Minister Lametti's response, Bill C-7, unnecessarily proposes the removal of not only that 10-day waiting period, but the loosening of a number of other safeguards."

Batters says that given the parliamentary calendar, even meeting a new February date will be challenging.

Thank you to everyone who has contacted Senators. If you have not done so, please contact the Senators by mail or email. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

Spain's lower house approves euthanasia bill. Spain's Senate will now debate the bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coaliton

Spain's lower house passed the euthanasia bill by a vote of 198 to 138 (2 abstained) on Thursday December 17. According to Spain's parliamentary news  (google translated):

The Plenary of Congress approved today, Thursday, December 17, the Organic Law Proposal to regulate euthanasia with 198 votes in favor, 138 against and 2 abstentions in a joint vote as required by Article 81 of the Constitution and 131 of the Congress Regulations, which also establishes the necessary absolute majority for its approval and thus continue its processing in the Senate.

Likewise, the opinion sent by the Justice Commission has been approved with the incorporation of the technical corrections of the Socialist and Confederal GPs of Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-Galicia en Común approved in plenary session, with 198 votes in favor, 138 against and 2 abstentions.

This Organic Law Proposition, promoted by the Socialist Parliamentary Group, introduces euthanasia as a new individual right into the legal system, understood as "the action that produces the death of a person directly and intentionally through a single cause-effect relationship. and immediate, at the informed, express and reiterated request of said person over time, and which is carried out in a context of suffering due to an incurable disease or condition that the person experiences as unacceptable and that has not been able to be mitigated by others media".

Spanish euthanasia protest

The Spanish El Pais reports that the bill approves euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The text of the bill talks about “serious, chronic and debilitating conditions or serious, incurable diseases causing intolerable suffering” as valid causes for requesting life-ending assistance. While the document does not use the term “assisted suicide,” it contemplates “the direct administration to a patient of a substance by the relevant healthcare professional,” in other words euthanasia, or “supplying a patient with a substance that can be self-administered to cause death,” meaning medically assisted suicide. The procedure may be carried out at public or private health centers, or at the patient’s home, according to the bill.

The lower house approved the bill even after the Spanish Bioethics Committee unanimously rejected the proposed bill in their October 6 report:

The bill is invalid not only because it decriminalizes euthanasia as an exception to the general rule requiring life to be protected, but also because it recognizes death as a right that can be incorporated into the list of public health benefits, the committee noted.

The CBE pointed out that “a person’s desire for a third party or the state itself to end his life, directly or indirectly, in those cases of great physical and/or mental suffering, must always be viewed with compassion and met with effective compassionate action leading to the prevention of pain and a peaceful death.”

"Legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide entails setting out on a path toward the devaluation of the protection of human life whose boundaries are very difficult to foresee, as the experience of our circumstances shows us.”

The committee stressed that “euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are not signs of progress but rather a regression of civilization, since in a context in which the value of human life is often conditioned by criteria of social utility, economic interests, family responsibilities and the burden to the public or public spending, the legalization of early death would add a new set of problems.”

Euthanasia is wrong because it permits the killing of people, nonetheless, the disability community in Spain needs to strongly speak up. This legislation threatens their lives.

Five Year Review of Canada's euthanasia law will likely begin in January. The Senate may amend euthanasia Bill C-7

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) National News has reported that the Five Year Review of Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law that was legislated to begin in June 2020 will likely begin in January 2021.

Dale Smith reported in an article published in the CBA National on December 14 stated that:

Sources within the Liberal caucus have told CBA National that they have been told the five-year legislative review of the existing MAiD regime is slated to start in January, though this has not been announced publicly. That review was supposed to begin in June, but was pushed off because of the pandemic and the inability to come to an agreement on how to ensure that Parliament would keep functioning throughout it.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is concerned by statements made by Justice Minister, David Lametti, indicating that the government intends to review the issues not dealt with by Bill C-7. Bill C-7 passed in parliament and is currently being debated in the Senate.

Lametti has stated on several occassions that the review will focus on issues related to child euthanasia, euthanasia for mental illness alone and enabling people to validly request euthanasia in their power of attorney for health care (living will).

The bill that legalized euthanasia in June 2016, legislated that a full review of the law was to begin in June 2020. EPC supports a full review of the law, not simply a review that is limited to issues oriented to further expanding the law.

Article: Changes to the law are premature since the government has not done its mandated parliamentary review (Link).

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with only two Liberals voting against the Bill, Justice Minister Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec to extend the time-frame to February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. Therefore the time restraint placed on the Senate to pass Bill C-7 may be lifted.

Article: Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators (Link).

Senator Denise Batters

The Senate may amend Bill C-7.

Smith also reported for the CBA National that Conservative Senator Denise Batters, the Deputy Chair of the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee, is not in a hurry to pass Bill C-7 and she recognizes that amendments to Bill C-7 may be necessary. Smith wrote:

Conservative Senator Denise Batters, a lawyer and former chief of staff to the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan, says that if Lametti had read the committee's interim report, he would have seen that there were "major flaws" in the bill that she says will prove problematic in the Senate.

Batters says that she is still evaluating whether to move amendments to the bill, but says that she is most concerned that the bill potentially violates the Section 15 Charter rights of persons with disabilities, and with the removal of the 10-day waiting period.

"The lower court Truchon decision struck down the requirement for a 'reasonably foreseeable' death in order to access assisted dying," says Batters. "It did not call for the removal of safeguards around the practice. Yet Justice Minister Lametti's response, Bill C-7, unnecessarily proposes the removal of not only that 10-day waiting period, but the loosening of a number of other safeguards."

Batters says that given the parliamentary calendar, even meeting a new February date will be challenging.

You need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

Austrian Court Creates Right to Assisted Suicide

This article was published by National Review online on December 14, 2020

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

A bit ago, Germany’s high court created an absolute right to commit suicide and the concomitant right to have help in making oneself dead.

Now, an Austrian court has said that committing suicide is a right of “self determination” and that obtaining help is part of that right. From the Tribune story:

The court said that the right to self-determination includes the right to a “dignified death,” and also the right of a person who has decided of their own free will to kill himself or herself to get help in doing so from another person.

But it remains unclear what exactly will be allowed in Austria starting in 2022.

I don’t think this was the highest court, so there may be an appeal.

Also, notice the court ruled that the state can attempt to ensure no undo influence.

The court said legislators will have to take measures to prevent abuse and ensure that “the person affected does not take the decision to kill themselves under the influence of third parties.”

Yeah. Right. Good luck with that. Guidelines do not protect against abuse.

More as I know more.