Dr Wes Ely comments on the acquittal of Dr William Husel in the overdose deaths of 14 patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Wes Ely will be featured in an EPC zoom meeting on May 9 at 4 pm (EST). Dr Ely will speak about the Husel case and the proper use of opioids (Registration Link) 

Dr Wes Ely

Recently a jury found Dr. William Husel NOT Guilty on All 14 Counts of Murder, we learn that, after deliberating for five days, the jury found former physician William Husel not guilty of murder after overdosing patients with fentanyl and benzodiazepines. Husel claimed he was providing "comfort care" even though the doses of drugs were determined to be lethal, the defense claimed that he did not have "intent" to kill.

Charlie Camosy interviewed Dr. Wes Ely who was an expert witness in the Husel trial, a professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the associate director of aging research for the Tennessee Valley Veteran’s Affairs Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center. 

The following comments by Dr Ely create significant concern about the jury's decision in the Husel trial. Dr Ely responded to Camosy about the verdict by stating:

I want to trust the justice system and I want to know that in the United States, that a jury of our peers can make good and well informed decisions that we can live by and achieve justice in our society.

On the other hand, this is a physician who we absolutely know gave upwards of one to 3,000 micrograms of fentanyl to 14 people, actually 25 people, but only 14 were taken to trial.

That amount of medication completely stops the brain from sending signals to breathe so that we would stop breathing at all if we get that amount of a narcotic opioid. In addition to that, with high doses of fentanyl like that in the operating room, we see very tight chest wall muscles so that we physically can’t breathe, even if you want to.

Camosy then asks Dr Ely - did these overdoses kill.

I think that these doses did kill these people. They were very critically ill people, and, yes, they were dying, but we are all dying over time. The patients weren’t going to die in 12 minutes, which was the average time to death after the drugs were injected.

At the end of the day, these actions taken by Dr. Husel, and I testified very clearly on this, did shorten these people’s lives, I think, without any degree of uncertainty.

And so I have mixed emotions because my gut and instinct as a physician and as a person goes against the decision that was made by the jury. However, I will accept the decision, while at the same time hoping for some reforms to prevent this from happening again.

In his conclusion Dr Ely states:

The case of William Husel is a breach of our understanding of truth, in that I think Dr. Husel was giving lethal doses of medications in the name of palliative care. And when he was not found guilty by a jury of his peers, the worry that I have is that it will give other people license to go about giving these sorts of euthanasia style doses to other human beings, even when the patients haven’t asked for it. 

Dr Wes Ely will be featured in a EPC zoom meeting on May 9 at 4 pm (EST). Dr Ely will speak about the Husel case and the proper use of opioids (Registration Link) 

Petition: No to Child Euthanasia in Canada.

In March 2021, the Canadian government expanded its (MAiD) euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7 which allowed euthanasia for mental illness and for incompetent people who had been previously approved to die.

The Canadian government appears to want further expansions of euthanasia.

Sign and share the petition: No to Child Euthanasia in Canada (Link).

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) has been given five topics to study related to euthanasia in Canada. One of the topics is euthanasia for mature minors (children).

In September 2018, the Journal of Medical Ethics published a paper titled, “Medical Assistance in Dying at a paediatric hospital”. This paper proposed a policy for implementing euthanasia for children that was developed by a committee at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. The paper stated that it was possible that euthanasia of children could take place in the future without the knowledge or consent of the parents.

We need you to sign the following petition to the co-chairs of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying - No to Child Euthanasia in Canada (Link).

 

We, the undersigned, oppose euthanasia for mature minors.

We believe that children should be protected and cared for, not killed.

There are many concerns about euthanasia for mature minors, including the competency of the child, parents facing emotional and psychological pressures, and the false concept that denying children euthanasia is a form of discrimination.

Children need protection, care and love. We need to protect their lives.

Child euthanasia. We say, “NO.”

Sign and share the petition: No to Child Euthanasia in Canada (Link).

Important Articles on this topic:

1. Responding to the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying
2. SickKids hospital will euthanize children with or without parental consent.
3. Québec mother wants her 4-year-old son to die by euthanasia.
4. Belgium: Euthanasia of Newborns Practised Outside the Law

Vermont legalizes assisted suicide by Zoom

This article was published by National Review online on April 28, 2022.

By Wesley Smith

Remember when we were told that assisted suicide would only be engaged in as part of an intimate and long-term physician/patient relationship?

Of course, the laws never required that. And now, Vermont has legalized assisted suicide by Zoom or Skype. The new law also eliminates the previous requirement that the doctor have examined the patient. In other words, the poison-prescribing doctor would seem to never have to actually meet the patient in person. From the recently passed and signed S 74:

(a) A physician shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action if the physician prescribes to a patient with a terminal condition medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death and the physician affirms by documenting in the patient’s medical record that all of the following occurred:

(1) The patient made an oral request to the physician in the physician’s physical presence or by telemedicine, if the physician determines the use of telemedicine to be clinically appropriate, for medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death.

(2) No Not fewer than 15 days after the first oral request, the patient made a second oral request to the physician in the physician’s physical presence or by telemedicine, if the physician determines the use of telemedicine to be clinically appropriate, for medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death.

Strict guidelines protect against abuse! Except they were never strict, and those that do exist are not intended to stick. As soon as people become comfortable with doctors participating in their patients’ suicides, the “protections” touted so loudly are suddenly redefined as “obstacles,” and “access” to facilitated death “is improved” by making it easier to be made dead.

And cold cynics that assisted-suicide advocates are, they know that by the time their ruse becomes apparent, people won’t care anymore. Look Ma. No brakes!

Humpty Dumpty’s Language Lesson. Dr Husel found not guilty in 14 counts of murder.

The following article was published by the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO).

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that is all.”      (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

Words matter. In the article Jury Finds Dr. William Husel NOT Guilty on All 14 Counts of Murder, we learn that, after deliberating for five days, the jury found former physician William Husel not guilty on charges of overdosing patients with fentanyl and benzodiazepines because he was purportedly providing "comfort care". Even though the doses of these drugs were determined to be lethal, the defense had claimed he did not have "intent" to kill.

“And, so it goes… patients having their already fragile lives shortened with blatantly high doses of controlled substances beyond the standards of practice, while the professionals who order and administer these doses hide behind this concept of “comfort care”. We know it goes on in hospices around the country. And this verdict welcomes more of it,” stated HALO advisor Cristen Krebs, DNP, ANP-BC.

The words we use — and how we use them — make a difference. Calling murder “comfort care” makes evil appear good. Humpty Dumpty-style language manipulation is an effective strategy for marketing the culture of death. 

WARNING: In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that its “strongest warnings” be added to labels on opioid pain medications and benzodiazepines after finding that the growing use of opioid medicines combined with benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system has resulted in serious side effects, including slowed or difficult breathing, and deaths. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns about serious risks and death when combining opioid pain or cough medicines with benzodiazepines; requires its strongest warning | FDA

Also, be wary of combinations of drugs such as morphine, fentanyl, Ativan, and Haldol, as well as the administration of opioids when they are not necessary for pain relief or the amount and/or frequency seems excessive. Be suspicious of any medication, especially an opioid or benzodiazepine (primarily used to treat anxiety), given every hour or two.

To help you navigate this difficult issue, please read HALO’s fact sheet 6-HALO-Drugs-Commonly-Used-in-Hospice-and-Palliative-Care.pdf (halovoice.org) 

Abbotsford police investigating (MAiD) euthanasia death

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Duncan's daughters, Alicia and Christie

CTV National News Medical Correspondent, Avis Favaro, reported on April 26 that Abbotsford police are investigating the (MAiD) euthanasia death of Donna Duncan (61). Favaro reported:

The case involves Donna Duncan, a nurse and mother who died on Oct. 29, 2021. It appears to be among the first assisted-death cases being reviewed by a police unit in Canada, although federal officials don’t keep statistics on when such cases are reported to police.

Her daughters, Alicia and Christie Duncan, say they requested a police investigation after what they claim were troubling circumstances around their mother's case that raise questions about why she was approved for medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Duncan's daughters told Favaro that they never want what happened to their mother to have again. Favaro reports:

On Feb. 25, 2020, Duncan was in a car accident, near her home in Abbotsford. The following day at a walk-in clinic, she was diagnosed with a concussion.

But as COVID-19 restrictions were implemented across Canada, her daughters say her medical care and rehabilitation were curtailed.

"It was March and that's when the COVID shutdown happened. So she didn't have treatment for months and months,"

Medical documents obtained by the sisters and shared with CTV News also show that Duncan complained about headaches, bright lights, and difficulty concentrating, watching TV, or using a computer. In July 2020, she was identified as having post-concussion syndrome. Her daughters suspect the problems were compounded by stay-at-home orders during the pandemic.

Doctors did not treat Duncan's health problems but approved her for MAiD. Favaro reports:

In early October, a psychiatrist in Abbotsford, Dr. Shah Khan, saw Donna and reported in medical records that while the source of her physical problems was unclear, a somatic disorder was likely part of the picture. This condition causes an extreme focus on physical symptoms such as pain that cause emotional distress. Treatments include therapy, antidepressants, and treatment by a specialist in mental health, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Weighing just 82 pounds, Duncan kept losing weight and was using a walker. Her common-law partner, Rick Hansum, said she had been suffering for months and was rapidly losing weight despite consuming 1,500 calories a day.

"She couldn’t wear clothes because they hurt. Pureed food and shakes felt like broken glass. People don’t realize the pain she was in," Hansum told CTV News in a phone interview.

Duncan's asked Dr. Parin Patel, for MAiD but he refused and noted that she needed treatment for her mental health. Duncan then asked Fraser Health for MAiD. Favaro reports:

Alicia and Christie say they didn't learn of their mom's plans for a medically-assisted death until Oct. 22, when Duncan texted them to say she had been assessed and approved by one MAID practitioner with Fraser Health: Sean Young, a nurse practitioner. The second approval was from Dr. Grace Park, a MAID practitioner also with Fraser Health. Park visited Donna in person on Oct. 24 and signed the second approval.

MAID laws in Canada require two health practitioners to approve someone for a medically-assisted death. There are criteria doctors or nurse practitioners must follow, including discussion of whether other measures to treat the patient’s illness have been taken.

With the two signatures, Duncan’s death was scheduled for two days later, on Oct. 26.

Duncan's daughters immediately obtained an injunction pending a psychiatric consult. Duncan received a psychiatric consult on Oct. 26 by Dr. Zia Ui Haque who, according to Favaro, stated:

he “saw no convincing evidence of depression (or) anxiety” and deemed Duncan competent to make the choice "even though she may be making an unwise choice about medical assistance in dying.” He also noted that she had “not explored other avenues including pain relief or any other medical intervention,”

On October 27, she had another psychiatric assessment by Dr Khattak: 

who found Duncan "in distress," said that her mood was “depressed” and that she had “limited insight into her problem.”

Duncan agreed to be transferred to the Chilliwack hospital where Duncan was given a third psychiatric assessment where she was declared competent and released at 4:30 pm. Duncan died that evening at 9:30 pm by euthanasia (MAiD).

Alan Nichols

The Chilliwack hospital is where Alan Nichols was assessed, approved and lethally injected. Nichols was not terminally ill, but depressed. Nichols family has also demanded an investigation into Alan's death.

The family hopes that no other family experience a similar death. Duncan's daughter Alicia told Favaro:

“If my mother had not been suffering from mental illness, she would [not have] thought this. She is a two-time cancer survivor. She would have survived this, but she was not in a place mentally to be able to make that decision subjectively,”

Abbotsford police, the physician and nurse practitioner who approved the death and the family doctor have all refused to comment on the case. Fraser health offered condolences.

Fraser health is the same British Columbia health authority that demanded that the Delta Hospice Society provide euthanasia. When the Delta Hospice Society refused to kill their patients, the BC Ministry of Health defunded the Delta Hospice Society and expropriated their 10 bed hospice and placed it under the control of Fraser Health.

Sadly this is not the first family who have wondered how a family member was killed by (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada.

Canada's law does not provide effective oversight. People requesting to be killed do not need to try effective treatments for their condition, they only need two medical practitioners who approve the death, the two medical practitioners only have to be "of the opinion" that the person meets the "criteria" of the law and there is no mechanism in the law to challenge a questionable approval.

Colorado court: Defense of consent does not apply to man who killed his terminally ill wife.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bruce Bagwell was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his terminally ill wife on February 6, 2019 in Colorado. Bagwell appealed his conviction by claiming a "defense of consent." 

Last week, a three judge court of appeal panel decided that a "defense of consent" was not available to him because his act caused a serious injury (death) and his act was intentional. This is an interesting decision based on the fact that Colorado legalized assisted suicide in 2016.

According to the court decision:

In the hour after the shooting, Bagwell admitted to his wife’s father, his wife’s sister, and the arresting officers that he shot his wife because she asked him to do so to end her suffering. He told law enforcement that his wife had begged him to shoot her each of the preceding five days, and he explained that it was a “mercy killing.” In a videotaped interrogation, Bagwell again admitted to two detectives that he had killed his wife.

Bagwell was tried and convicted of first degree murder in October 2019 and appealed the decision by contending the trial court erred by denying him a defense of consent.

The court of appeal found that Bagwell cannot claim a defense of consent the injury was serious (caused death) and Bagwell clearly intended to cause death. 

An article by Michael Karlik published in The Gazette stated:

"An injury that causes a victim’s death is necessarily 'serious,'" wrote Judge W. Eric Kuhn in the panel's April 21 opinion, "because it involves a permanent and dangerous impairment of the victim’s physical condition. The consent defense is not available, then, when a defendant intentionally kills a victim who consents to her own death."

When reading the court decision, the court of appeal did not find signs of pressure from the police, Bagwell freely confessed to the crime.

Considering the nature of the act, the use of the defense of consent should also apply to euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

The euthanasia lobby argues that they are carrying out the wishes of a person who has asked to die. The act of euthanasia, which is usually done by lethal injection, intentionally causes the death of the person. Whether a person has requested it or not, precedent should apply to the act, that being, there is no defense to consent when intentionally killing another person.

Protect Children's Lives from euthanasia.

We have great news for you and we know you will want to be part of it.

For some time, pressure to legalize child euthanasia has been gaining strength. In 2014 Belgium was the first country to legalize child euthanasia. In the Netherlands the government launched a discussion about child euthanasia. We took action and we have begun to see favourable results for protecting the fundamental right to life of our children. Now Canada has also begun to debate child euthanasia.

Follow - Protect Children's Lives - on facebook (Link).

We have joined forces in favour of life with different organizations and we have become the voice against child euthanasia. We believe that ending the life of children is not the solution; A child with a serious medical condition needs love, care and protection, not the message that his life is not valuable.

A child doesn’t have the ability to consent to having their life ended by euthanasia. Society owes to our children to give hope even in the midst of difficult health conditions and to provide the best palliative care possible.

We invitate you to join us and together be a voice to protect children’s lives. (click here)

We are an active network that is committed to increasingly reach the different spheres of society and to be able to be an increasingly strong movement in the investigation of irregularities, making solid arguments in favour of life and to be a community that believes that euthanasia is not the solution for children.

We invite you to visit our website to read the information, as well as to find us and follow us on all our social media platforms and we promise to keep you updated on any progress and campaigns.

If you would like to receive more information regarding our fight against child euthanasia we invite you to (click here)

Together to protect children's lives.

With love
Protect Children's lives