Balfour Mount, the father of palliative care, slams Québec's euthanasia bill.

Dr Balfour Mount, the father of palliative care in North America, who spent 40 years at the bedside of dying patients in Québec, slammed the Québec euthanasia bill 52 in an interview with Justina Reichel, and published in the Epoch Times. Reichel also interviewed Alex Schadenberg, from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Reichel interviewed Dr Mount by email. Reichel reported:

A Canadian physician considered the father of palliative care in North America says legalizing doctor-assisted death would be a “disastrous mistake.”

Dr. Balfour Mount has made it his life’s work to help ease the suffering of critically ill patients. He coined the phrase “palliative care” (to palliate means to improve the quality of something), and set up the first palliative care ward at McGill’s Royal Victoria Hospital in 1973.

Mount, 74, has a unique perspective on the euthanasia debate, having experience on both sides of the hospital bed. He has survived decades of critical illness including testicular cancer in his 20s, esophageal cancer in his 60s, and a heart attack.

Mount admits that in his darkest moments of suffering it was easy to lose hope and the will to live.

Despite it all, he says euthanasia was never an option.

“Having cancer has helped to sharpen the issues for me and has clarified why intentionally ending life has never been considered ‘a medical act,’” he said in an email to the Epoch Times. 

“Twenty-four hundred years ago, when the ability to ease suffering was minimal, Hippocrates warned that intentionally ending the patient’s life must always lie outside the doctor’s purview and this promise has been part of the doctor’s oath ever since. We should ask ourselves why now, when we can do so much, has the issue become so urgent.”

Mount has lent his voice to a recently launched video campaign, along with humanitarian Jean Vanier and other “humanity experts,” urging Quebec to stand against Bill 52. Link to the video.

“Legalizing euthanasia places at risk the most vulnerable among us: the elderly, people with disabilities, those unable to speak for themselves, and those who feel they are a burden to their loved ones,” he says in the video.

“I think it would be a disastrous mistake to legalize euthanasia in Quebec, and Canada.”

Mount takes issue with the fact that palliative care is mentioned 33 times in the bill, but the word euthanasia doesn’t appear once—something he finds misleading and disturbing.

“I deeply resent the manipulative phrase ‘medically assisted dying’ when referring to legalizing euthanasia,” he said. “Medically assisted dying is what I have been concerned with for 40 years. It has no relationship to intentionally ending my patient’s life. Instead, the goal is quality of life.”

Mount says Canada needs to focus on the advancement of palliative care, rather than on euthanasia.

“There’s no need [to legalize euthanasia] because of pain and symptom control. We’re able to control the suffering, and through palliative care with a skilled team able to minimise suffering that’s physical, psychological, social, spiritual, existential,” he says.

“If there is an exception, palliative sedation is legal. It’s part of palliative care—it doesn’t need a legislative change.”

Schadenberg in Brussels Belgium

Reichel also interviewed Alex Schadenberg by phone. Reichel reported:

Longtime anti-euthanasia activist Alex Schadenberg, international chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says Quebec should take heed of the example of legalized euthanasia in other countries—particularly Belgium, whose legislation Bill 52 is modeled after.

A problem emerging in Belgium, says Schadenberg, is that the definition of “psychological pain” is difficult to define and ever-expanding. Patients who opted for assisted death have included a woman going blind and another with chronic depression.

Belgium is now considering widening the law to include children with disabilities and people with dementia.

“Over time they keep extending it,” he says. “People are asking for it out of fear or other reasons.”

Since Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002, statistics show that medically assisted deaths have consistently risen. The number of reported assisted deaths rose from 954 in 2010 to 1,432 in 2012, representing 2 percent of all deaths in the country.

A 2010 study of the Flanders region of Belgium published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 32 percent of assisted deaths were carried out without patient request and 47 percent went unreported.

Various polls conducted in recent years have found a majority of Canadians support the right of terminally ill patients to have medical assistance to die. Schadenberg believes that if more Canadians realized the potential pitfalls of Bill 52 and the range of experience in other countries, they may be more reluctant to support it.

Link to the original article.

Canadian Assisted Suicide case sparks dueling letters on Disability

Diane Coleman, the founder of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, has written an excellent blog article concerning attitudes and articles about people with disabilities in relation to the Carter case. The article that was published today on the Not Dead Yet blog is titled: Canadian Assisted Suicide Case Sparks Dueling Letters on Disability. The article starts by explaining what the Carter case intends to do. Diane quotes an article that was partly written by myself she writes:

Diane Coleman

The public debate is well underway.  On November 13, the Calgary Herald published an op ed by three opponents of legalization entitled “Why we should be afraid of assisted suicide.”  The authors describe the case as follows:

Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada brings a constitutional challenge to Canada's laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia. The case also seeks to legalize these practices as a medical treatment. Last year, a bill in Parliament seeking a similar result was overwhelmingly defeated…. The vote was 228 to 59.

Carter seeks to allow a medical practitioner or a person "acting under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" to assist a patient's suicide. … In the context of traditional medical treatment, "a person acting under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" would include a family member.

Glad to be alive - Alison Davis responds to Calgary Herald article.

Alison Davis

Alison Davis, the founder of the disability rights group, No Less Human, responded to the editorial that was in the Calgary Herald on November 20, 2011 entitled: "No right to be killed; Doctor assisted suicide should not be allowed." Her response was printed in the Calgary Herald today under the title of "Glad to be Alive." This is what Alison Davis stated:

Re: "No right to be killed; Doctor assisted suicide should not be allowed," Editorial, Nov. 20. 

I was glad to see your excellent editorial stating the case against euthanasia. If it had been available to me some years ago, I wouldn't now be writing to you. I have several severe disabling conditions. I use a wheelchair full time and a vent at night. I have severe pain, which even morphine can't control. 

I wanted to die for more than 10 years, at a time when doctors thought my life expectancy was very short. I attempted suicide seriously several times, and was saved, only because friends found me in time and took me to the emergency room, where I was treated. 

At first, I was angry with them for thwarting my wishes. Now, I'm eternally grateful. I want to live now, even though my pain is worse than it was when I wanted to die. What changed my mind is friends who refused to accept my view that my life had no value, and a group of very poor children, who loved me wonderfully and overwhelmingly. I found a reason to live in reaching out to help others, rather than turning the negativity on myself. If assisted suicide had been available then, no one would ever have known the doctors' prognosis was wrong, or that I'd be missing the best years of my life.

Alison Davis, Blandford Forum, U.K.

Alison Davis - a UK disability activist responds to pro-euthanasia person with a disability

Tony Nicklinson, a paralyzed Englishman lobbying for a so-called ‘right to die’, was interviewed recently by Stephen Sackur for the BBC’s “HardTalk” programme.

Alison Davis, the coordinator of the disability rights group, No Less Human, responds to Mr. Nicklinson’s interview. Alison wrote:

“While the interview purports to let Tony Nicklinson speak for himself, in fact almost all of what he says is lifted from the ill-named “Dignity in Dying” (DiD, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). For instance he apparently holds the view that as able bodied people can “choose to take their own life” so “a paralyzed person of sound mind [should] have a right to die.” However, there is no “right to suicide” in this country for anyone, disabled or not. In fact, much public money is spent on “suicide prevention programmes” for the non-disabled, though those who run them are eerily silent when asked to comment on assisted suicide for sick/disabled people.

Another argument that he uses, again lifted from DiD, is that he might not want to die “if he had the ‘comfort’ of knowing that suicide was an option.” This argument was widely used by Debbie Purdy, in her campaign to make assisted suicide legal. However, in Mr. Nicklinson’s case it soon transpires that he is not seeking to change the law on assisted suicide, as Mrs. Purdy was. He wants it to be legal for him to be given a lethal injection (euthanasia). This is what DiD originally campaigned for. However, in recent years the group has been careful not to mention this, although undoubtedly it is still their final aim.

Both Mr. Nicklinson and his wife want “strict safeguards,” again along the lines of DiD’s “model” law. Note that lethal injections should be available “in only the most special of cases.” As has been apparent from places where some form of killing sick or disabled adults has been legalized, it has proved impossible to ‘hold the line’ in this way. Once it becomes legal to directly kill an adult (by whatever means, and whatever the disability), the situation quickly deteriorates, and those ‘not quite’ fulfilling the ‘strict criteria’ are found to be ‘worthy’ to qualify for this type of supposed ‘death with dignity’. Then the proverbial slippery slope is greased enough to allow the killing of those unable to ‘choose’ death –e.g., disabled newborns and people with dementia, both of whom qualify for being deliberately and directly killed in The Netherlands.

Interestingly, though, Mr. Nicklinson re-defines what pro euthanasia campaigners say–that going to the ‘Dignitas’ killing facility in Switzerland constitutes ‘death with dignity’. His definition of ‘death with dignity’ is to be killed at home, preferably with the help of his wife, who would give him sedation, followed by an amorphous ‘someone else’ who would give the lethal injection. …

However, from my own personal perspective, what stands out most from this interview is Mr. Nicklinson’s opinion that his situation “causes anguish for pro-life campaigners who could not possibly understand.” One has to assume that he has not the slightest idea of who “pro-life campaigners” are, and what they may have personally experienced.

I cite my own case in complete contradiction of his view. I run No Less Human (NLH), a disability rights group which, amongst other things, campaigns against all forms of euthanasia/assisted suicide. NLH members are either disabled themselves, have a disabled family member, or care in some capacity for disabled people. I have several seriously disabling conditions, including spina bifida/hydrocephalus, chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung) disease, osteoporosis and arthritis. I use a wheelchair full-time. I take morphine regularly, but that doesn’t satisfactorily control the pain. When the pain is at its worst I can’t think, move or speak. I need surgery, but cannot have it, because my lungs are so badly affected there is a high risk that I would die on the operating table. I live with levels of pain which most would find ‘unbearable’. But somehow, with the help of my closest friend and carer, Colin, we manage to find a way through the tough times together.

I notice that the Nicklinsons’ idea of ‘safeguards’ includes ‘a lengthy ‘cooling off’ period’. Again my situation is relevant. Some years ago I wanted to die, a settled wish that lasted over 10 years. I feel confident that wanting to die for 10 years would be sufficiently ‘lengthy’ to satisfy Mr. Nicklinson’s criterion. I seriously attempted to take my own life, and at that time doctors thought I didn’t have long to live. If the Nicklinsons’ campaign had been successful and in place then, I would have chosen death, and would not now be alive. If that had happened, no one would ever have known that the best years of my life lay in the future, despite the fact that my pain and disabilities are much worse now than they were then. Equally, no one would ever have known that the doctors’ prognosis of a very short life expectancy, and of a ‘life not worth living’ were so very wrong.

Jane Nicklinson, Tony’s wife, ends the interview by noting that “all the letter writing and the campaigning … you quite enjoy it, don’t you?” If Mr. Nicklinson still has something to enjoy, albeit campaigning for his own death, doesn’t it rather suggest that, given support and encouragement, he might find that he enjoys other, less morbid, activities even more?”

Look beyond the suffering

Alison Davis, the inspired leader of the disability right group - No Less Human in the UK, recently sent a letter that was published in the Herald newspaper in UK.

Davis was responding to Mary Warnock's comments concerning the supposed "safeguards" that would be part of a bill to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

Warnock is the same person who suggested in September 2008 that people with dementia may have a 'duty to die'.

Alison Davis wrote:

Mary Warnock makes a fundamental mistake when she suggests that so long as a bill legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide has sufficient “safeguards”, sick and disabled people need not worry that they will be first in the line of candidates for the lethal dose (Why sometimes it’s rational to choose death, Opinion, October 24). There is a more basic problem than relying on “safeguards” which, of course, would be written by the very people who want to legally hasten the end of some people’s lives.

Typical “safeguards” state that the person requesting death must be terminally ill or have an incurable disability; they must be adult, suffering “unbearably and unrelievably” and, crucially,the “choice” must be entirely theirs. All well and good, one might think (that is, if one were not a member of any of those categories).

Let us now consider a person who qualifies under all these “safeguards”.

She has an incurable disability which entails using a wheelchair full time, and her condition is degenerating. It is causing extreme physical pain which the best efforts of many teams of doctors have been unable to alleviate. Her doctors think her life expectancy is very short. An intelligent adult (with a university degree), she says repeatedly, to anyone who will listen, that she wants to die. Feeling unheard by those who could “help” her, she seriously attempts suicide several times, and is saved only by friends. She is furious when she comes around to find herself still in this world.

Legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide would seem to be a boon for a patient like this.

Ten years on, the woman is still disabled, still uses a wheelchair, still has extreme pain. She has moved to a different area where local doctors conclude that since she has lasted 10 years, the prognosis of a very short lifespan must have been wrong. The big change, however, is that she no longer wants to die. She has found that she can use her talents to help others, even more vulnerable than herself, to live and to have better lives than they otherwise would. Fast forward a further 15 years and she is still alive, more determined than ever to live whatever life she has left to the full.

Would the Warnocks of this world agree to add a waiting time – 10 or 20 years – to any bill they draw up, in case of a change of mind? Because human beings are fallible, because life can be good even with great pain, because nobody knows when doctors’ prognoses will be wrong, it is sheer folly to legalise assisted suicide for one group of people because they suffer in certain ways, while spending large amounts of money on “suicide prevention programmes” to prevent the suicides of others who suffer in a different way.

You will have guessed, I’m sure, that I am the woman who wanted to die for 10 years, is still alive today, and who still wants to live. If I had died 25 years ago, I would have missed the best years of my life. Mary Warnock’s mistake is that she seems unable to look past the suffering to see the person, a sad afflication indeed.

Alison Davis - Dorset

Everyone who knows and loves Alison is happy that she is alive. She is truly an inspiring woman.

I’m grateful I wasn’t allowed to end it all!

Alison Davis the Co-orinator of No Less Human in the UK commented on the case of Tony Nicklinson, a man who has locked-in syndrome, who is pressing the courts to override the law to give his doctor the right to kill him by euthanasia.

Davis, who was born with spina bifida and lives with extreme pain on a daily basis stated that for many years she wanted to "end it all". She stated:

“If euthanasia had been legal, I would certainly have requested it and I wouldn’t be here now,”

But after several serious suicide attempts, blocked by the intervention of Alison’s friends, she began to change her mind.

Alison met the children with disabilities in India that she had been sponsoring through a charity that she founded. The experience led her to think, for the first time in over ten years, “I think I want to live”.

Alison stated:

“I’ll always be grateful to the friends who saved my life (though I wasn’t at the time). And I’m especially thankful there was no possibility of persuading my doctors to legally help me die.”

She believes that people with disabilities “deserve the same kind of help routinely given to those who do not have a physical condition but who feel suicidal”.

Further testimony about the Will to Live was given by Richard Rudd, a man who was paralysed in a motorcyle accident and who almost died after the family had decided to turn off his ventilator. Rudd changed the doctors minds about his condition when he began to move his eyes. Rudd indicated by responding to questions by blinking that he wanted to live.

Kate Wilson, Rudd's girlfriend stated:

“He’s a fighter and he wants to live, so I am praying for a miracle. I just want my boyfriend back and I still can’t believe how close I came to losing him.”

The euthanasia lobby will suggest that people who oppose euthanasia, which is legally giving the right to a physician to intentionally and directly cause the death of a patient, are heartless.

My heart goes out to Tony Nicklinson and Alison Davis equally, but I recognize that when you legalize euthanasia the collateral damate is that a woman like Alison Davis would now be dead, and not enjoying life. I also recognize that society does not have the right to kill its citizens, but it does have the obligation to care.

The real question is: Why does Tony Nicklinson want to die? Once that is established then the answer is what can be done to make a difference in his life.

Link to a video news report on Locked-in Syndrome: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/paralyzed-man-locked-syndrome-blinks-doctors-pull-plug/story?id=11164809

Assisted Suicide guidelines in the UK are a dangerous because they are a murderer's charter

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines from the director of public prosecutions in the UK have released. The guidelines are listed at the end of the comment.

The prosecution guidelines are dangerous. They establish the rules that people will follow to be directly and intentionally involved with killing another person. The guidelines falsely

When considering the increase in the incidence of elder abuse and the purpose of the assisted suicide law, which is to protect people from others, it is clear that these guidelines are a recipe for elder abuse that will lead to further abuses of the law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition would consider these guidelines helpful if they were sentencing guidelines. Since there is no minimum sentence for assisted suicide in the UK (or Canada), therefore guidelines, such as these, would help the judge determine the factors that should be considered when sentencing a person who was convicted of assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines list 16 factors that would favour prosecution for assisted suicide in the UK and 6 factors that are deemed to not be in the public interest for prosecution.

Dr Robin Mackenzie, from the University of Kent, stated that rules have to distinguish clearly between assisting someone to die and taking the life of someone in a so-called mercy killing.

Dr MacKenzie argued that under the six factors outlined in the new guidelines there could be problems in finding evidence to justify non-prosecution.

“It is likely to be problematic insofar as the evidence will be provided by the person who claims they assisted suicide,” she said.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Evidence-for-assisted-suicide-could-cause-problems-newsinkent33211.aspx?news=local

While introducing the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines Starmer stated:

"Assessing whether a case should go to court is not simply a question of adding up the public interest factors for and against prosecution and seeing which has the greater number. It is not a tick-box exercise. Each case has to be considered on its own facts and merits."

"As a result of the consultation exercise there have been changes to the policy. But that does not mean prosecutions are more or less likely. The policy has not been relaxed or tightened but there has been a change of focus."

Link to the Prosecution Guidelines:http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html

As much as he is stating that these guidelines will not prevent a person from being prosecuted, he is certainly explaining to lawyers in the UK the line of defense that they will need to follow, if and when prosecutions occur.

Dr Peter Saunders, the director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, said the final rules were an improvement on those published in September. But he added: 'How will a prosecutor decide if someone's motives are wholly compassionate?

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their media release:

The guidelines also make clear that no one who assists a suicide must expect to be prosecuted. It states that “a prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution that outweigh those tending in favour”. In other words, unless there are clear and compelling reasons not to prosecute, you will end up before the courts.

The new guidelines are not without their weaknesses. For example, it is not at all clear how it is to be established in any case of assisted suicide that “the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion” (one of the six factors against prosecution). But their general tenor is one of good sense and they show greater concern for public safety than did the earlier 'interim' version.

Publishing final guidelines is not, however, the end of the matter. It remains to be seen how they will be implemented. The CPS has shown recently, in the case of Kay Gilderdale, that it will not hesitate to prosecute where necessary. What is needed now, to maintain public confidence in the protection of the law, is total transparency of CPS prosecution decisions in cases of assisted suicide.

Link to the response by the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK:http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=876

George Pitcher who comments in a blog that is published in the Telegraph.co.uk was more upbeat about the new assisted suicide prosecution guidelines. He stated:

It's a dark day for the assisted-death lobbyists at Dignity in Dying. Lord Falconer, whose attempt to get assisted suicide legalised in the House of Lords failed last year, will be wobbling with rage that Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has turned out not to be the Law Lords' poodle by undermining the Suicide Act 1961, with his assisted-suicide prosecution policy.

Link to George Pitcher's blog comments: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100027504/rejoice-dpp-deals-severe-blow-to-dignity-in-dyings-hopes-for-assisted-suicide/

The disability perspective was clearly stated by Clair Lewis in her blog under the title: Getting away with murder: Discriminatory how-to guide is a national disgrace. Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet republished Lewis's blog comments and stated - There are many reactions and lots of commentary out there, but by far the best I've read so far is from Clair Lewis:

In an unprecedented move, the Director of Public Prosecutions will release his special guide on how British citizens can aid and abet suicides with his approval.. as long as they only do it to the people he's selected as fit for death.

Helping end someone's life is a crime, which usually carries a 14 year prison sentence, but not so if the corpse is one of someone who was very sick and they were 'asking for it'. In which case, judging by recent news and the killers walking free among us, you get freedom and national hero status.

Now we will all have a neat little guide to help us kill our loved ones right.. to CPS standards. State approved Assisted Suicide Kits aren't available, but then, it takes time to organise given how many hundreds of thousands of very sick people must need their family's 'help'.

A fundamentally ridiculous, contradictory and terrifying belief has taken over society which suggests people can have better equality, or lives by being dead.. or even killed through a discriminatory law made just for us. Impressive work, but very dangerous. Several times lately I have wanted to pinch myself to check if I was dreaming. But no, the DPP is really producing this guide and the public really do think it is different and more acceptable to kill someone who is sick, or to 'assist' their suicide than it would be if it were anyone else. All other suicidal people in this country are entitled to HELP and killings and suicide facilitators are prosecuted heavily.

It's not nice being a disabled person today looking around me, wondering which four in every five citizens is happy to kill a relative.. wondering which four of my five relatives would be happy to kill me. I am living in a country which is happy to make it easier to kill the old and sick, whilst absolutely not caring what the majority of people this law would put at risk have to say on the matter. Even though the scientific evidence (as opposed to the imaginings of most of the British non-disabled public) shows that people concerned don't want or need this law - apart from a very few poster children whose fear, misery and internalised oppression the euthanasia movement are taking advantage of.

Link to the blog comments by disability leader Clair Lewis: http://clairlewis.livejournal.com/17981.html

Alison Davis, the national co-ordinator of the disability rights group in the UK, No Less Human, commented on the case of Kay Gilderdale who pled guilty to aiding the suicide of her daughter Lynn. Davis, who had attempted suicide in the past, stated:

Twenty-five years ago, like Lynn, I decided I wanted to die. It was a settled wish.

Unlike hers, however, my wish to die lasted ten years. During those years I attempted suicide more than once. On occasion, I was treated against my will by doctors, who saved my life. Then, I was angry with them. Now, I’m grateful.

If I had died, I would have missed the best years of my life, though I still have pain, worse now than it was when I wanted to die.

Additionally, no one would ever have known that the future held something better for me, not in terms of physical ability, but in the support and love of friends.

My experience shows that it’s possible to come out on the other side and to demonstrate that life is worth living.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition realizes that the euthanasia lobby will exploit the weaknesses in the prosecution guidelines. We expect that the euthanasia lobby will attempt to undermine the guidelines by exploiting the "hard cases" by supporting "courageous" members to intentionally break the law to test the Prosecution Guidelines and the legal system.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines have left the justice system exposed. The guidelines use vague and misleading terminology to define factors, such as, *the victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide (someone can be subtly pressured) or the perpetrator *was "wholly motivated by compassion" (how could that ever be determined). A good defense lawyer will be able to use these guidelines to further underline the purpose of the law which is to protect people from others who either think they know better, or are carefully taking advantage of a relationship that brings them benefit.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK:

The sixteen public interest factors in favour of prosecution are:

* The victim was under 18 years of age.
* The victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide.
* The victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
* The victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect.
* The victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative.
* The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.
* The suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim.
* The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance himself or herself.
* The suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication.
* The suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other.
* The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance.
* The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care.
* The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present.
* The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

The six public interest factors against prosecution are:

* The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
* The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
* The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.
* The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.
* The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect reported the victim's suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.

Link to the prosecution guidelines in the UK: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/109_10/

Previous blog comments about the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/assisted-suicide-law-to-be.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-gilderdale-assisted-suicide-case.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/12/alison-davis-legally-challenges.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/prosecution-guidelines-in-uk-may-open.html

Assisted suicide: law to be decriminalised 'by back door' from next week?

Martin Beckworth and Heidi Blake were published yesterday in the Telegraph paper in the UK suggesting that the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines that will be published next week by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will effectively decriminalised assisted suicide by the back door.

Previous blog comments about the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/peter-saunders-asks-dpp-guidelines-due.html

Alison Davis challenges assisted suicide prosecution guidelines: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/12/alison-davis-legally-challenges.html

The article predicts that the Final rules set out by the Crown Prosecution Service will make it clear that those who are directly and intentionally involved with causing the death of a family member, etc are unlikely to face court if they "acted out of compassion." yet the "factors against prosecution are likely to be altered from existing draft guidance, after it was claimed that they would leave the most vulnerable members of society at greater risk while providing immunity to spouses regardless of their motives."

Link to the previous blog comment: Prosecution guidelines may open the door to assisted suicide: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/prosecution-guidelines-in-uk-may-open.html

The concept that someone is acting "out of compassion" is vague and misleading. We need to remember that everyone needs to be concerned about the suffering of persons, but to suggest that it is compassionate to allow a person to be involved with killing a person is false, misleading and dangerous.

According to the article, the same concern was stated by The All Party Parliamentary Group on Dying Well which said the guidelines “could have the unintended effect of leading potential law-breakers to believe they will secure immunity from prosecution if they assist suicides in certain prescribed ways or circumstances”.

If the article is correct I would share the concerns brought forward by Legal experts that said:

"this unprecedented step “in effect decriminalises” an offence on the statute book and in so doing “infringes the supremacy of Parliament”."

When prosecution guidelines don't interpret the law, but change the law, then we need to become concerned about the nature of our democratic institutions and the effects this has on other moral concerns.

The article does indicate that Starmer listened to the disability community. The article stated:

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, who was born with spinal muscular atrophy, told the DPP that this factor would be considered discrimination on the grounds of disability.

On behalf of a campaign group called Not Dead Yet, she wrote: “This ‘understanding’ of a disabled or terminally ill person’s wish to die is deeply demeaning to other disabled people and sends out entirely the wrong message to those newly disabled or diagnosed with a terminal illness.”

The article also predicts that the guidelines will not simply exonerate spouses. It stated:

"respondents said it was “naïve” to assume their motives in helping their husband or wife die were honest, and were not influenced by money or the desire to free themselves from caring responsibilities."

It is interesting to note that:

"The Royal College of Physicians has demanded that doctors are specifically included in the list of professionals whose involvement in an assisted suicide would increase the likelihood of prosecution, amid fears that the draft rules could open the door to allowing euthanasia."

If Starmer publishes assisted suicide prosecution guidelines that defacto legalise assisted suicide, then those guidelines will need to be legally challenged or parliament will need to intervene, even if the primary reason for challenging the guidelines is to protect our democratic institutions.

Link to the article in the Telegraph paper in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7271843/Assisted-suicide-law-to-be-decriminalised-by-back-door-from-next-week.html

Scottish euthanasia bill would encourage suicide tourism to Scotland

A leader of Dignity in Dying, the leading euthanasia lobby group in the UK, has warned that the bill that was introduced by Margo MacDonald to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in Scotland would also encourage suicide tourism to Scotland.

Edward Turner, the treasurer for the Dignity in Dying group, was reported in an article written by Charlene Sweeney for The Times in the UK, as saying:

Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide Bill is "morally ambiguous" and would encourage suicide tourism to Scotland if it became law.

Turner also explained his concerns related to the fact that the bill focuses on legalising euthanasia for people with disabilities. He stated:

Ms MacDonald's inclusion of people who had been physically incapacitated raised troubling questions about the value of the lives of the disabled.

"When you talk about that (people with disabilities), it's morally ambiguous. I'm not saying it is immoral, I am not saying it is right or wrong, but people have a range of views. There is an issue about the protection of disabled people's lives. Some disabled people are very threatened the idea that able-bodied society as a whole, which has no experience of disability and no experience of the discrimination which disabled people face, would suddenly say, "Ah, that's the answer to disability - give people the option of assisted death.'"

The article also stated that:

Mr Turner said that he and Ms. MacDonald had spoken about their differences and "agreed to disagree", but he suggested that the inclusion of disabled people would be one of the parts of the "End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill" to fall.

Turner suggested that even though the bill states that the person must be registered with a Scottish physician for 18 months that people with "money, wherewithal, nous and forward planning" would find a way to bend the rules. He stated:

"If they get diagnosed with something unpleasant, as a little kind of insurance policy they'd try and register with a Scottish GP, and you might even find people moving there."

Alison Davis, the leader of the disability rights group, no less human, who lives with spina bifida, emphysema and osteoporosis, opposes the Scottish bill based on her experience as a person with disabilities. Seventeen years ago, she decided she too wanted to die. The pain she still suffers is constant. "When the pain is at its worst I cannot think or speak, and this can go on for hours, with no prospect of relief. Taking morphine often makes me feel sick, and severe nausea is an added burden," she declares. She tried cutting her wrists and taking overdoses of painkillers. Had euthanasia or assisted suicide been legal she would now be dead. But then she changed her mind. A visit to a disabled children's project in India, where she saw the suffering of dozens of uncared-for youngsters convinced her to set up a charity helping them.

Allison Davis states that:

"Euthanasia would have robbed me of the last 17 years of my life, and it would have robbed my Indian children of the chance in life they now have,"

As much as I like the honesty of Edward Turner, the fact is that he is only discussing a difference in strategy. Essentially Turner is saying that MacDonald's bill is likely to fail because it is ambiguous and is perceived as a threat to the lives of people with disabilities. Turner supports a "go slow" approach that would, in the end, give us all the same provisions of MacDonald's Bill but do so through time.

Link to the article from The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7019800.ece

Alison Davis legally challenges the prosecution guidelines in the UK

Alison Davis, the leader of the disability rights group, No Less Human, has launched a legal challenge to the prosecution guidelines concerning assisted suicide in the UK.

Davis, a woman with multiple disabilities, stated that the legal ruling, that forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to weaken the prosecution guidelines concerning assisted suicide in the UK, was unsound and based on a bias. Davis alleges that Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, now the Supreme Court's President, later expressed strong personal views on the subject of assisted suicide in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

Lord Philips stated to the Daily Telegraph:
"I have enormous sympathy with anyone who finds themselves facing a quite hideous termination of their life as a result of one of these horrible diseases, in deciding they would prefer to end their life more swiftly and avoid the death as well as avoiding the pain and distress that might cause their relatives."

Davis's legal challenge alleges that the ruling related to the Diane Purdy case was "vitiated by the principle of bias", and therefore "the decision of the former House of Lords is 'unconstitutional' and usurps the powers of Parliament."

The legal challenge also calls for "a full Supreme Court to be convened to reconsider and hear fresh arguments on the Purdy case."

In a letter to Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions,Davis wrote that: "The guidelines are unfair, unjust, and fatally discriminatory against suffering people, who deserve the same presumption in favour of life as any able bodied person would automatically receive. They (the prosecution guidelines) have no place in a civilised society."

Andrea Williams, the lawyer for Davis, stated: "Disabled people have always had the protection of the law and disabled people are now appealing to the highest court in the land in an attempt to retain this protection."

Peter Saunders, the Director of the Care Not Killing Alliance added: "The Law Lords' decision in July, overturned earlier Judgements in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, was an unusual one to say the least - that those contemplating breaking the criminal law in this area should be advised how far they might go without risking prosecution."

Saunders also stated that: "the prosecution guidelines ... and in particular their suggestion that helping a severely disabled person to commit suicide might be regarded more leniently than helping someone else to kill themselves - we are not surprised to hear that the Law Lords' decision is now being questioned."

"It is not difficult to see why people with disabilities and seriously ill people should now perceive that they are not to be afforded the same protection that the law gives to the rest of us." said Saunders.

The spokesperson for Lord Philips stated: "Lord Philips has not called for a change in the law. He simply expressed sympathy with anyone considering ending their life because they had a terminal illness. He made it clear that this was his personal view."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition reacted when the prosecution guidelines were issued by stating:

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is particularly concerned about the devaluation of people with disabilities that is evident in the guidelines. A person, such as Alison Davis, the leader of the group No Less Human in the UK would qualify for assisted suicide under these guidelines.

When an able-bodied person becomes significant disabled from an accident or a medical condition they will often be upset by their new physical or cognitive condition. These people need the law to protect them to provide time to learn how to live with their new reality. They need to be protected and not treated with inequality or threatened by the possibility of dying by assisted suicide when they are experiencing a difficult time of life.

We are also concerned about this concept of a person being “wholly motivated by compassion.” It is nearly impossible to determine the motivation outside of the context of their actions. We reject the concept of a “compassionate homicide” and we reject the concept that a person that assists the suicide of another person is acting in a compassionate manner.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that the temporary guidelines by the DPP have created a new class of inequality within the application of the assisted suicide law in the UK. If these guidelines are not amended in order to equally protect every citizen under the law, then these guidelines are likely to be struck down by the Courts thus further eroding the assisted suicide law in the UK.

These guidelines are simply unacceptable and they directly threaten the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable people in the UK.

The Prosecution Guidelines for assisted suicide in the UK must be revoked.

Link to the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729832/Assisted-suicide-disabled-campaigner-in-11th-hour-court-challenge.html

Link to the original comments by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition concerning the prosecution guidelines in the UK: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/prosecution-guidelines-in-uk-may-open.html

Final Exit Network proves that they are not concerned with terminal illness or depression

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent FOX 5 Special: Inside Final Exit Network examined some of the people the Final Exit Network had assisted suicides or planned to assist their suicide.

The first case was that of Kurt a 26-years-old, one Chicago man who has an incurable neurological disorder known as Charcot Marie Tooth or CMT. CMT is not fatal, but Kurt suffers from a rare form of the disease that causes severe respiratory problems which can make breathing feel more like suffocating.

Kurt is not terminally ill, he is not dying, but he does have a significant disability. He needs support and help to live a full-life. He needs pain and symptom management for his chronic conditions, but he is not terminally ill.

Dr. Jerry Dinkin, a retired clinical psychologist and the current president of the Final Exit Network said:

the Final Exit Network limits its services only to those with terminal, irreversible or intolerable health problems. The group's president insisted exit guides only offered clients information and emotional support.

The important point is that Dinkin does not limit assisted suicide to terminally ill victims but rather includes people with irreversible and intolerable health problems.

My friend Alison Davis who is a disability rights advocate in the UK and the leader of the group No Less Human, was born with irreversible and intolerable health problems. Does that mean that her life is not worth living. Those who have not read Alison's story need to know that Alison attempted suicide at a low point in her life. She is very happy that a member of the Final Exit Network didn't come and visit her.

People with disabilities realize how cults like the Final Exit Network will prey on people at the most vulnerable time of their life. We need to maintain laws against assisted suicide to protect us from the Final Exit Network types who insist that they are only offering freedom when they should be offering the freedom to live.

Becky Rumage Tuttle, a member of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet was right when she said to the Fox reporter.

"How can putting a plastic bag over your head with no air not be a horrible way to die? I don't buy it,"

Tuttle said groups like Final Exit Network do a disservice to disabled people who could benefit from therapy, medical advances or support groups.

"You're not just standing back and saying, 'I understand how you feel, it must be really tough right now,' they're saying, 'Here's a way out,'" said Tuttle.

Tuttle applauded the arrest of four Final Exit Network members in February on assisted suicide charges. The members are accused of helping 58-year-old John Celmer of Cumming take his own life in 2008.

"What options are they giving them if the sole purpose of their organization is to give the resources to end your life," asked Tuttle.

Link to the Fox Special - Inside Final Exit Network
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/FOX_Special_Inside_Final_Exit_Network_031809

An article in the Arizona Daily Star casts further doubt on the concerns that the Final Exit Network had for their victims. The article by Earl Wettstein, the first president of the Final Exit Network refers to John Celmer, the man who had recovered from cancer and who's assisted suicide death led to the investigation into the Final Exit Network.

Wettstein writes:

The man who killed himself had cancer of the throat, his jaw had been removed, he could not swallow and was facing two more major surgeries. He decided he no longer wanted to endure this.

The dead man's mother, 85, said her son had suffered from cancer of the throat for years. She said he was extremely depressed about his condition and the additional operations planned.

She said, "If they helped my son to die, I would never find them guilty for helping him."

But Wettstein's supposed quote from Celmer's mother does not represent the sentiment of Celmer's family.

In an interview with Sue Celmer, the widow of John Celmer who died by assisted suicide after the Final Exit Network members took advantage of his depression, she stated that:

The last year-and-a-half of her husband's life was difficult. John Celmer endured surgery and radiation to rid him of oral cancer. That left him with a deteriorating jaw that required more surgery. Then there was also the constant pain from an arthritic hip.

"But there was tremendous hope. He had no cancer. He was not terminal. There were many things we were looking forward to do."

"I think they're misguided, I think they lack the insight of truth."

Sue Celmer also stated:

"His physical condition was curable. Any depression he had was treatable, and death is not."

The family is contemplating a civil suit against the Final Exit Network.

Link to the article from February 28 that interviewed Sue Celmer:
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=127498&catid=3

Link to the article in the Arizona Daily Star:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/284908

Lord Joffe to introduce assisted suicide bill

Lord Joffe will once again attempt to legalize assisted suicide in the UK by resurrecting his Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill that was blocked by the House of Lords two years ago.

This time he plans to use the story of Debbie Purdy to gain support for his cause.

Joffe told The Times that he decided to take action so that family and friends who wished to help to end their loved ones' suffering would know whether or not they were committing an offence.

Joffe also said:

"First we want to get a debate going before we introduce the Bill, so the issue has been explored in the public arena. The introduction of the Bill will be sooner rather than later. It will be a question of when time in the parliamentary calendar can be found to consider a Private Member's Bill."

"The purpose of a Bill is for a change in the law to prevent unnecessary suffering. But we would only be looking at people who are terminally ill."

It is interesting that Joffe is using the Purdy case to promote his efforts to legalize assisted suicide. Purdy is not terminally ill and with good care, she can remain comfortable and live with dignity.

Alison Davis from No Less Human stated that:

If Lord Joffe’s Bill had been law then, I would have qualified for “assisted dying” and I have no doubt whatsoever that I would have requested it.

Leaders of the disability rights movement, such as Davis, recognize that assisted suicide directly threatens their lives due to social attitudes and subtle pressures that exist within society.

Link to article about Alison Davis
http://www.notdeadyetuk.org/alisondavies.php

Lord Joffe is also wanting to appear to be a moderate within the confines of the euthanasia lobby. Joffe's comments at the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto in 2006 would make you believe that his Bill would be a first measure to legalize assisted suicide. The wording of the previous Bill was based on what the euthanasia lobby believed would be considered acceptable at that time in history.

Link to the article from the Times online:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/business/law/article5042490.ece

Dying in Dignity leader - Edward Turner questions the assisted suicide death of former Rugby Star - Daniel James

Once again it appears that leaders of the euthanasia lobby group - Dying in Dignity - in the UK have questionned the more radical actions of the world-wide euthanasia lobby.

Last week Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr. Death, had his appearance at a Irish University cancelled after Dying in Dignity leaders branded his advice as irresponsible and illegal. Nitschke is known for his "peaceful pill" handbook and his suicide promoting and counseling service on the internet.

Today Edward Turner, a trustee of the lobby group Dying in Dignity in the UK, questionned the actions of those who supported Daniel James who travelled to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide at the Swiss Dignitas Assisted Suicide clinic.

Turner stated that while he would like to see a change in UK law to allow 'assisted dying' for terminally ill patients, there was a 'distinction' between those cases and that of Daniel James who whilst paralysed, probably had 'several decades' of life ahead of him.

Turner had accompanied his terminally ill mother to the Swiss Dignitas Clinic. His mother had progressive supranuclear palsy.

Turner was quoted as saying:

"The vast majority of the population wants assisted dying for the terminally ill to be legalised ... but Dan wasn't terminally ill.
Although I advocate assisted dying, I'm basically against assisted suicide."

On the other hand, Baroness Warnock supports the assisted suicide death of Daniel James. She said:

"we had a 'moral obligation to other people to take seriously reached decisions with regard to their own lives equally seriously."

Link to the article on UK's Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078877/Suicide-rugby-player-decades-live-says-euthanasia-campaigner-mother-died-Swiss-suicide-clinic.html

My thoughts on the case of Daniel James (23) lead me to think about a Canadian hero, Steven Fletcher the member of parliament for Charleswood - St. James - Assiniboia in Winnipeg Manitoba and the current parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health.


I do not know what Fletcher would say about James's death, but I do know that Fletcher became a complete quadriplegic in 1996, after hitting a moose with his vehicle while travelling to a geological engineering job in northern Manitoba. The accident left him completely paralysed below the neck, and he now requires 24 hour a day attendant care. He was unable to speak for several months, and only regained this ability after a long process of recovery.

A comment in a blog about Daniel James said:
"So Mr James "had decades of life ahead of him" Until you have walked a mile in his shoes how can you know what it feels like to live his life. His parents may suffer a great loss but at least they know they respected his wishes.

Steven Fletcher has lived through similar experiences that Daniel James would have been experiences. He handled the adversity by rising up to become a source of inspiration for people with disabilies.

I also think about my friend Alison Davis, the leader of the group No Less Human in the UK.

Alison was in a similar situation as Daniel James. She wanted to die and attempted to commit suicide. If she had "supportive parents" as James supposedly has, Alison would be dead today. Instead Alison is an active leader of a disability rights group that supports the equality and dignity of people with disabilities and rejects the concept that equality and dignity includes assisted suicide.

James may have also become a great inspiration for others if he had not been abandoned to his supposed wishes.

For more information about Steven Fletcher go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Fletcher

Woman Who Begged for Euthanasia Has a Change of Heart

Alison Davis, who has spina bifida, a disability rights activist and leads No Less Human in Britain said:

"The story of Mrs. Seema Sood explains in a nutshell why allowing legalised killing of vulnerable people by euthanasia is wrong. Mrs. Sood, who is now 37, longed for death two years ago, and even petitioned the President of India for euthanasia. She had lost all movement of her limbs for 15 years following a severe attack of rheumatoid arthritis, and was in despair. Now two years later, after surgery paid for by the Government of her state and her university alumni association, she says 'I regret the letter to the President. Everything was so dark for me ealier, but I'm excited about my mobility now and I'm confident I will improve.'

"Euthanasia would have robbed Mrs. Sood of the chance to recover her love of life, and to benefit from the surgery which revolutionised her life, and no one would have known that life held something better for her in the future. She is not the only vulnerable person who has changed her mind about wanting to die. I've been through the same experience myself.

"But euthanasia allows for no changes of mind. It is the philosophy of despair. What sick and disabled people who want to die really need is the sort of help and support which Mrs. Sood received both from politicians and her friends. Note well, politicians. Your actions could save a life like Mrs. Sood's rather than condemning her and others to death."