Thursday, March 31, 2022

The Liberal Humanist case against assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has been fortunate to have had Kevin Yuill present at several of our conferences. He recently spoke at an event in Italy. His most recent article: The Liberal Humanist case against assisted suicide was published by Spiked on March 25. Yuill is a professor of American studies at the University of Sunderland (UK).

Yuill begins his article by quoting Baroness Meacher who recently introduced an assisted suicide measure in the House of Lords (UK) that was thankfully defeated. Yuill begins his article by examining Meacher's statement with helping a friend arrange an assisted death in Switzerland:
I was motivated purely by compassion. But in the eyes of the law, my acts made me a criminal.’
Yuill responds to Meacher's statement by writing:
Although it looks reasonable and humane, this campaign to legalise assisted dying is anything but. As I will set out below, it is primarily based on fear-mongering; it would undermine the idea of moral equality that regards the killing of an 86-year-old as just as wicked as the killing of a 24-year-old; and rather than liberate the individual, it would destroy his freedom.

Moreover, as the history of the euthanasia movement shows, the undoubtedly genuine compassion of today’s assisted-dying campaigners conceals the disturbing utilitarian and technical view of humanity on which their campaign is ultimately based.
Yuill then deals with the issue of the changing terminology. He first defines euthanasia and assisted suicide, as they have been traditionally understood and then he states:
Indeed, the terminology shifts according to timespan and geography. Little wonder, the terms du jour, ‘assisted dying’ and MAiD become blurrier the closer you look at them. MAiD implies assisted suicide in the United States but in Canada all but a handful of MAiD deaths are euthanasia rather than assisted suicide. The Netherlands, where both euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, has no qualms about using the term suicide – which is considered offensive in the Anglosphere – in order to distinguish them.

Does the term ‘assisted dying’ help public understanding? No, it doesn’t. In a UK poll conducted in 2021, when asked ‘What do you understand by the term “assisted dying”?’, 42 per cent of Brits polled thought it meant ‘Giving people who are dying the right to stop life-prolonging treatment’ – a right that they already have. When considering that the majority of Brits support the legalisation of ‘assisted dying’, it is useful to remember that much of what they support is already legal.
Yuill then writes about the fear-mongering campaign by the assisted suicide lobby:
The campaign to legalise assisted dying often plays on people’s fears of how they and their relatives might die. Hence a typical campaigning video by Dignity in Dying, a leading UK-based assisted-dying campaign doctor to make it stop. He or she will be surrounded by relatives, who tearfully plead with hospital staff to end it. Many watching such short films will recall the death of a loved one and are genuinely horrified at the prospect that anyone else should have to suffer like that.

But how true is this scenario? Not very. In 2019, the CEO of Hospice UK, a charity that works with those experiencing death, dying and bereavement, publicly chastised Dignity in Dying for the ‘sensationalist and inaccurate’ portrayal of death in a video to accompany its ‘The Inescapable Truth’ campaign.

Dignity in Dying eventually removed that particular video but it is persisting with its scare tactics. It continues to claim that 17 people will suffer as they die every day. What it does not say is that an estimated 1,700 people die every day in the UK. That means, according to Dignity in Dying’s own statistics, that less than one per cent of the population will suffer as they die.
Yuill acknowledges that the assisted suicide lobby sells a limited form of assisted suicide in order to gain support for legalization. But he examines the question of a life that is not worth living.
The charity, Humanists UK, however, argues that ‘we do not think that there is a strong moral case to limit assistance to terminally ill people alone…’. And campaign group My Death, My Decision also rejects restricting assisted suicide to the terminally ill. Yet even these organisations refrain from campaigning for the right of all competent adults who want to die to be assisted in their suicides. They just draw different lines between those whose lives are worth living and those whose are not.

Moreover, virtually all assisted-dying advocates argue that doctors should ultimately be in charge of the process of deciding who is entitled to an assisted death. Even in Switzerland, where assisting a suicide is legal so long as there is no monetary interest involved, doctors are expected to facilitate suicides.

This is a serious problem. The decision as to whose life is no longer deemed worth living effectively rests with medical authorities or other representatives of the state. It is up to them to decide who should live and who should die.
Yuill then examines the dark history of euthanasia in the twentieth century.
Only in the early part of the 20th century did euthanasia proper come to the fore. In the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany, there were several unsuccessful attempts to legalise euthanasia. This pro-euthanasia campaign emerged against a political background increasingly dominated by eugenics. While ‘Social Darwinism’ implied that the fittest would survive if nature weeded out society’s losers, eugenics favoured active intervention to assist natural selection. As the German zoologist Robby Kossmann put it at the end of the 19th century, the state ‘must reach an even higher state of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual… The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.’
He then writes about the German euthanasia movement.
In 1920 Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche published the pamphlet, Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living. They argued that ‘there are indeed human lives in whose continued preservation all rational interest has permanently vanished’. Psychiatrist and neurologist Robert Gaupp – remembered for his principled defence of a man with Jewish associations in opposition to the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 – was referring to mentally disabled people when he said that it was time to remove ‘the burden of the parasites’

Such views reached their grim culmination in the Nazis’ infamous T4 Aktion programme – an involuntary euthasia project responsible for an estimated 300,000 deaths of mentally and physically disabled patients between 1939 and 1945. Of course, no one should infer that these brutal killers bear any relation to today’s assisted-dying campaigners – who are, in general, sincerely compassionate in their motivations. But nor should we view the T4 Aktion programme as entirely distinct from the wider euthanasia movement.
Yuill explains that the Germans weren't the only ones promoting eugenic euthanasia.
In the US, supporters of euthanasia were equally vocal. ‘Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and to the world’, said the famous deaf, dumb and blind woman, Helen Keller. In the early years of the 20th century, Dr Ella K Dearborn cheerfully called for ‘euthanasia for the incurably ill, insane, criminals and degenerates’. And in the UK in 1931, Sir James Purves-Stewart, a physician at Westminster Hospital and future member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society – the forerunner of Dignity in Dying – called on his countrymen to give euthanasia ‘most serious consideration’ because of ‘a grave menace to the future of the state’ and ‘race’. Another prominent ELS member, the psychiatrist and eugenicist, AF Tredgold, told the British Medical Journal that euthanasia should ‘also be extended to include incurable low-grade defectives. It is true that these would be incapable of consent, but their inclusion would appear to be a logical sequence of the proposal.’
Yuill explains that euthanasia lost its appeal with knowledge of the Nazi euthanasia program. He explains that assisted suicide, as a concept, was not debated until the 1980's. Yuill continues:
Today, of course, the campaign for assisted dying is very different to that for euthanasia before the Second World War. But some of the same utilitarian concerns about certain people being a burden and a drain on resources persist just below the surface of today’s assisted-dying discourse. For example, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2001, mainstream political parties have expressed support for the Completed Life Initiative. Based on a 2010 campaign that boasted 117,000 supporters, the CLI promises euthanasia for those over the age of 74 who are ‘tired of life’. That this age group is also deemed the least productive in society should worry us all.

Then there is the widespread use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a measure of a person’s ability to carry out daily activities, free from pain and mental disturbance. This measure allows states to rationalise resources, especially medical resources, according to the ‘quality’ of the years a person might have left. Proponents of assisted suicide often employ QALY measurements to assert that the lives of people with certain conditions are not worth living. As two researchers argue, ‘denying access to assisted dying means that patients remain alive (against their wishes), and this can often necessitate considerable consumption of resources’

Legalising assisted dying should not be regarded as a simple step to bring relief to a very few. It is a huge step that will lead to some people’s lives – on physical, or sometimes mental grounds – being deemed not worth living. That is a dire and dangerous situation. There is wisdom yet in the famous old Christian precept, thou shalt not kill.
Previous articles connected to Kevin Yuill (Link).

Kelly Block MP speech supporting Bill C-230 - The Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act.

The speech by Kelly Block MP from March 28 supporting Bill C-230 - The Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

Link to the video of Kelly Block's speech in parliament.

Sign the online Petition in support of Bill C-230 (Link)

Order MP postcards (at no cost) supporting Bill C-230 to send to your Member of Parliament by contacting EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or 


Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to begin the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act. This bill revives my private member's bill, which died on the Order Paper, from the last Parliament, with some slight modifications.

I would be remiss if I did not once again acknowledge that this bill is built on the hard work and determination of former members of Parliament. The first bill proposed to address this issue was introduced by the late Mark Warawa in 2016. His bill did not proceed because of the government's introduction of Bill C-14. After Bill C-14 was passed into law, my former colleague David Anderson introduced his private member's bill, Bill C-418, during the 42nd Parliament. However, that bill also died on the Order Paper when the general election was called in 2019.

I would like to thank all those who have been championing this issue for many years and their willingness to work with me. Experts throughout Canada have provided information and advice, while thousands of grassroots Canadians voiced their support for protecting our fundamental freedoms. I would also like to thank the Library of Parliament for its timely, diligent and expert research, which helped inform this proposed legislation.

For the purposes of this debate, I think it is important to understand conscience. There are numerous definitions of conscience, but they are consistent in defining it as an individual’s inner sense of knowing the difference between what is right and wrong and allowing that knowledge to guide their behaviour. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under the heading of “Fundamental Freedoms”, in subsection 2(a) states that everyone has the fundamental freedom of conscience. In this way, Bill C-230 is straightforward. It seeks to add two new offences to the Criminal Code of Canada. I will read the summary so members will know what they are:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the purpose of compelling them to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

It also makes it an offence to dismiss from employment or to refuse to employ a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.
This bill is a response to calls from disability rights groups, first nations, the Ontario Medical Association, legal experts and many medical and mental health professionals to protect conscience rights. It ensures that medical professionals who choose not to take part in or refer a patient for assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying will never be forced or coerced to violate their freedoms as stated in the charter.

Previous Parliaments have passed laws that created the unintended consequence of doctors and medical professionals being forced to participate in providing a patient's death, regardless of whether they believe it is in their best interest. Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 created a federal standard for medical assistance in dying and assisted suicide but not for conscience protections.

By way of background, sections 241.1 to 241.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada deal with the provision of medical assistance in dying. These sections are in part VIII of the code. It deals with offences against the person and reputation, which include offences such as homicide, kidnapping, assault and many more. Subsection 241(1) of the Criminal Code still makes it a criminal offence to counsel or aid in a suicide. It reads:

Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,

(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.
When creating the exemption allowing for MAID, the government had to create an exemption to this prohibition on counselling or aiding in suicide. This then leads to the untenable claim that the Criminal Code already protects the conscience rights of medical professionals.

Some claim that the clarification clause, section 241.2 (9) of the Criminal Code, somehow protects conscience rights. It states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.
While I understand why some would want to think it protects conscience rights, I believe they are sadly mistaken. While I appreciate and support this inclusion in the Criminal Code, it only addresses one side of the coin. This clause only confirms that the Criminal Code is not the source of compulsion to participate in medical assistance in dying.

For the Criminal Code to have any teeth on this issue, it should articulate that it is an offence to compel someone to provide, or assist in providing, medical assistance in dying against their will. Compelling someone to participate in MAID can and does happen, which is why I have brought forward this legislation and why it needs to pass.

Regarding jurisdictional questions about this bill, as I mentioned earlier, this bill proposes that two new offences be added to the Criminal Code of Canada to address intimidation, dismissal from employment or refusal to employ a medical professional. This is similar to section 425 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the same actions taken by an employer to compel employees with respect to belonging to or organizing a union. I would suggest that if it is appropriate to have section 425 in the Criminal Code, it is reasonable to include the amendments I am proposing.

I would also submit that it is inaccurate to argue that conscience rights legislation somehow interferes with the role of the provinces while, at the same time, believing that the legalization of medical assistance in dying does not. Ensuring that conscience rights are protected is the responsibility of Parliament and of the Government of Canada, which is why I introduced this bill and why it should be passed.

Additionally, provinces can introduce their own conscience rights legislation for medical professionals. For example, Manitoba has passed simple and clear legislation in this regard, and I would encourage all provincial legislatures and parliaments to follow Manitoba’s example.

While the text of this bill focuses on the conscience rights of medical professionals, this legislation also serves to protect the right of patients to receive a second opinion. What do I mean by this? If all doctors are forced to propose MAID as a treatment option to their patients, this one-size-fits-all approach would give Canadian patients less choice, not more.

Additionally, individuals who object to MAID would be deterred from entering the medical profession altogether. Patients would no longer be able to seek a second opinion for their end-of-life care. In this way, conscience rights for medical professionals not only protect medical professionals and their patients, but they also protect our health care system.

Without conscience rights, doctors are constrained to provide, or refer their patients to receive, medical assistance in dying, regardless of whether it is their professional opinion that it is in the best interest of the patient. This concern for the patient’s best interest does not mean that a medical professional objects to medical assistance in dying in all cases, just that in his or her opinion it is not an option that should have to be offered in every case. This became especially pertinent to the medical community with the passage of Bill C-7.

To highlight the impact of the removal of the safeguard that death be reasonably foreseeable, I would like to quote from a recent column published online in Policy Options magazine which states the following:

Many injuries and physical illnesses are indeed accompanied by temporary depression and suicidal thinking. For example, research demonstrates increased risk of suicide for two years after a spinal cord injury. This suicidality overwhelmingly ends with adaptation and recovery support. Offering death to anyone during a period of transient increased suicidality is, in our view, unethical and violates the standard of medical care by which physicians must abide.

The fact that the newly expanded law may facilitate death in those circumstances of increased suicidal thinking is, in and of itself, problematic.
Some have tried to frame conscience rights as the rights of the patient versus the rights of the doctor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Health care is fundamentally about the doctor-patient relationship. For example, take the psychiatrist who supports MAID in certain circumstances, but in a certain case has spent 15 years counselling a patient who suffers from bouts of depression and suicidality. For 15 years, they have built understanding and trust. What would happen if that patient, suffering from a bout of suicidality, should demand assisted suicide? Under current law, that psychiatrist would be forced to refer that patient to someone else so he or she could die. They must do this, despite knowing that the suicidal thoughts are temporary and that otherwise the patient is joyful and loves his or her life. Ending that patient's life would be wrong, but the psychiatrist’s hands are tied. This should not be what passes for medical care in Canada.

Some might claim that there are safeguards in place to prevent such tragedies, but I would ask them if they are absolutely sure. With the passage of Bill C-7, many safeguards for medical professionals were removed. We are talking about ending a human life. There is no room for uncertainty when a life hangs in the balance.

Additionally, should the first line of safeguards not be the expertise of the medical professionals who know their patients best? If those medical professionals do not believe death is the answer, should we not at least consider if they are right? However, this then leads to the concern some raise that protecting the conscience rights of medical professionals will block access to those who truly want it. I would suggest this is both misleading and nothing but baseless fearmongering. Medical assistance in dying and assisted suicide are readily available throughout all of Canada. There are information phone lines, hospitals staffed with willing medical professionals, even email addresses to help set up appointments. In a word, MAID has become the status quo. It is available. 

The Canadian Medical Association also stated clearly that conscience protections would not affect access because there were more than enough physicians willing to offer MAID. Therefore, common sense should tell us that the charter rights of medical professionals are breached when they are forced to either offer or refer assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying. Surely, we have the capacity to both ensure access to MAID while still protecting the fundamental charter right to freedom of conscience. 

Finally, some have suggested that medical professionals should leave their morality at the door. I do not believe we want this to happen. For example, we would all want and expect doctors to be bound by their morals if they were offered a bribe to move someone up on a waiting list. If we hold our medical professionals to a higher standard, we cannot then tell them to ignore their personal moral standards. Further, while discussing the issue of conscience rights with a doctor, she told me that, in the absence of conscience protection, the group with the most to lose are the patients, and they are the ones we are trying to help. This bill protects the doctor-patient relationship by ensuring that doctors and other medical professionals are always able to recommend and provide the care they believe is best for their patients. Patients need this bill to pass. Canada’s medical professionals need this bill to pass.

Over the past two years, we have seen just how important our health care system is and how critical the medical professionals who work in that system are to Canadians and our way of life. We need to create a work environment for medical professionals that protects them, supports them, and encourages them to continue in the critical work they do. 

In closing, I encourage all members to support passage of the protection of freedom of conscience act.

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

EPC-USA responds to Massachusetts assisted suicide bill - The cost of suicide/assisted suicide.

May 29, 2022

Senator Cindy Friedman, Co-Chair
Representative John J. Lawn, Jr., Co-Chair
Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
24 Beacon Street, Room 313
Boston, MA 02133
RE: S.1384 An Act Relative to End of Life Options, creating an exception to involuntary manslaughter for physician assisted suicide
Dear Chairpersons Friedman and Lawn:

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide, supporting positive measures instead to improve the quality of life of people and their families. We are aging and disability advocates, lawyers, doctors, nurses and politicians.

We are asking you to let S.1384 (also H.2381) die in your committee. Enactment will likely increase your Medicaid budget by an estimated $14 million, with another $12.2 million for the uninsured (using publicly available data) as this letter explains.

Assisted Suicide Laws lead to More Suicides

Overall, Massachusetts has avoided the upward trend in suicide seen in other states, but that could change if S.1384 is enacted due to publicity, increased knowledge of methods, and normalization. Publicity or knowledge about suicide leads to more suicides, attempts and ideation. In 2017 when Netflix released 13 Reasons Why, the story of a 17 year old girl’s suicide and its aftermath, teen female suicides went up by 21.7% (95% CI, 7.3%-36.2). For every person who dies by suicide, another 30 attempt suicide. Legalizing Assisted Suicide sends a message that it is a normal way to solve problems which leads to more suicides, attempts and ideation.

Research about fatal suicides in Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana, the first four states to do so, found legalizing Assisted Suicide was associated with at least a 6.3% increase in the annual suicide rate. The study reported:
PAS [Physician Assisted Suicide] is associated with an 8.9% increase in total suicide rates (including assisted suicides), an effect that is strongly statistically significant (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6%--11.2%). Once we control for a range of demographic and socioeconomic factors, PAS is estimated to increase rates by 11.79% (95% CI 9.3%--14.1%). When we include state-specific time trends, the estimated increase is 6.3% (95% CI 2.7%--9.9%).
Massachusetts Experience

According to the latest Massachusetts Public Health Data Brief, 615 people died by suicide in 2020, down from 642 in 2019. There were 591 monthly Emergency Department visits for attempted suicide (7,092 per year) and 4,882 visits per month for suicidal ideation (58,584 per year) during 2019 to early 2020.
As detailed below, a 6.3% increase would result in the following annual medical costs.
Fatal Suicides                 $3.47 million
Attempted Suicides     $29.84 million
Suicidal Ideation          $15.94 million
Total Added Costs        $49.25 million
The Medicaid share of these costs would be 28.4% or $14 million. When it comes to medical costs for suicide, 28.4% are paid by Medicaid and 24.8% are incurred by the uninsured. The uninsured costs of $12.2 would mostly be absorbed by hospitals.

Medical Cost Calculations

Total 2019 medical costs for fatal and attempted suicides in Massachusetts are estimated to be $33.3 million ($3.47 million for fatal suicides and $29.84 million for attempted suicides). Medical costs for fatal suicides are collected and reported by the CDC WISQARS Cost of Injury system. During 2019, WISQARS shows fatal Massachusetts suicides had medical costs of $3.47 million. The medical costs for attempted suicides ran about 8.6 times that for fatal suicides in the latest national study of 2013 data. So, the estimated cost of attempted suicides for Massachusetts would run about 8.6 times the $3.47 million estimated above for fatal suicides or $ 29.84 million.

The medical costs for suicidal ideation are also significant. According to a study of 2013 data by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 72% of those visiting an Emergency Department for suicidal ideation are hospitalized or institutionalized. On average, the length of stay was 5.6 days for a cost of $6,000. Recall, Massachusetts had 58,584 suicidal ideation visits in 2019. A 6.3% increase would be 3,690 visits with 72% incurring inpatient costs or 2,657 at $6,000 each for $15.94 million per year. (Note this ignores the Emergency Department costs for the other 28% of ideation visits.)

Cost Shifting to Medicaid due to Availability of Assisted Suicide

An additional cost to Medicaid could come from people whose insurance stops covering 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 states where Assisted Suicide is legal. Some of those people could turn to Medicaid to get their treatments paid for.

In closing, I urge you to consider the financial impact on your state’s budget and hospitals; and then, let this bill die in your committee.


Sara Buscher, Chair
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Oregon extends assisted suicide nationally by eliminating residency requirement

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Associated Press reported that Oregon has expanded its state assisted suicide law to permit all Americans to die by assisted suicide by Oregon eliminating its state assisted suicide residency requirement.

In October 2021, Compassion and Choices, an assisted suicide lobby group, and Dr Nicholas Gideones, an assisted suicide prescribing doctor, launched a court case challenging the Oregon assisted suicide residency requirement. The assisted suicide lobby wanted to eliminate the "residency requirement" to allow all Americans to die by assisted suicide in Oregon. The lawsuit was filed in the federal court, claiming that the residency requirement is unconstitutional. (Link to news article).
EPC-USA were convinced that the Gideones case could be defeated.

The Associated Press article by Gene Johnson reported that:
Oregon will no longer require people to be residents of the state to use its law allowing terminally ill people to receive lethal medication, after a lawsuit challenged the requirement as unconstitutional.
EPC-USA was concerned that the Oregon government, which is supportive of assisted suicide, would not defend the state assisted suicide residency requirement in court, not because the residency requirement was unconstitutional but for political reasons. Sadly our fears were correct.

Johnson reported for the Associated Press that:
In a settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Portland on Monday, the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Medical Board agreed to stop enforcing the residency requirement and to ask the Legislature to remove it from the law.
This decision has changed assisted suicide from a state to a national issue since all Americans will be able to die by assisted suicide in Oregon. The assisted suicide lobby announced that they will now pressure other states that have legalized assisted suicide to also eliminate their residency requirements.

This decision also highlights our concerns with the use of telehealth. The assisted suicide lobby wants to approve out of state assisted suicide requests via telehealth and to send the lethal drugs by mail to the out of state requestor.

EPC-USA hopes that a state that opposes assisted suicide will launch a court case to prevent out of state assisted suicide laws from killing their citizens.

This is an historic decision because it extends assisted suicide nationally, including the many states that have strengthened their laws prohibiting assisted suicide.

EPC-USA opposes assisted suicide. These laws give physicians, and in some states nurses, the right to be directly involving with causing the death of another person. This is not an issue of self-killing, which is always a tragedy, but rather these laws enable healthcare workers to have the right to decide who should live and who should die and to prescribe lethal drugs with the intention of causing death.

Monday, March 28, 2022

Delta Hospice Society AGM - continues on Saturday April 2.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On Saturday, March 26, Delta Hospice Society members—in good standing as of the October 22, 2021, membership cut-off date—were able to vote on a revised constitution and bylaws that will ensure that Delta Hospice Society only provide palliative care that affirms life to its natural end.

The March 26 meeting was not finished and will be completed on Saturday April 2.

The meeting will begin at 11 am (Pacific Time). 

Here is the AGM Package Link and the Instructions for Voting at the meeting Link.

Members in good standing will be asked to pass two bylaws and to elect a new Board of Directors. Passing a bylaw requires 2/3 support whereas electing the Board of Directors requires a 50% vote.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges you to vote in favour of the proposed bylaw changes.

There are two proposed slates of officers. The first slate is supported by the current Delta Hospice Society board. The first slate is: 

Angelina Ireland, Danielle Martell, Mark Ruelle, Elizabeth Lawson, Kathlyn Palafox, Jim Taggart, Richard Smyth, Alexander Schadenberg, Jim Canil and Lorena Angus. 

Please vote for the members on this slate of officers and not the second slate.

Remember, the meeting begins at 11 am (Pacific time). If you live outside of British Columbia you will need to take the time difference into account.

Friday, March 25, 2022

Register now: Compassionate Community Care (Being With) Visiting Training Sessions April 12 & 13.


Being With Volunteer Visiting Training

Gain the confidence to journey with those who are suffering, socially isolated, sick, or dying, to renew their hope and purpose in life.

Link to Promo for the Training event.

FREE Online Training – Live on Zoom!

Workshop is two sessions, each session is two hours:

Session 1: Tuesday April 12th 7 p.m.- 9 p.m. EST and

Session 2: Wednesday April 13th 7 p.m.-9 p.m. EST

With Kathy Matusiak Costa, Executive Director of Compassionate Community Care, and Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Click on this link to register in advance

Compassionate Community Care: 

383 Horton St. E, London, ON N6B 1L6
Office tel. 519-439-6445 • •

CCC Helpline: 1-855-675-8749 • Charitable registration # 824667869RR0001

Register Now: Meeting capacity is limited to 100 participants.