Australian ALS Patient Denied Disability Support "Chooses" Euthanasia

This article was published by National Review online on January 19, 2026.

By Wesley J Smith

I really do try to write about other issues. But the awfulness keeps on coming.

Yesterday, I called attention to the Canadian bioethicist who claimed that lethal jabs are no different than hip replacements. Today, I came across an awful story out of Australia in which Tony Lewis, age 71 and experiencing Motor Neurone Disease — what we call ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease — has asked for euthanasia because he was denied sufficient financial support for his disability. From the Hello Care report:

A Queensland man with Motor Neurone Disease has chosen to access voluntary assisted dying after being denied support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme because of his age, reigniting concerns about Australia’s two-tier approach to disability and aged care.

Tony Lewis is 71. Diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease last year, he falls outside the eligibility criteria for the NDIS, which excludes people diagnosed after the age of 65. Instead, he must rely on the aged care system, where funding levels and response times are widely acknowledged as inadequate for fast progressing neurological conditions.

Lewis wants to go on living but believes his financial situation makes that impossible.

Mr Lewis currently receives funding that covers only a small number of basic services each week. The reality of his care needs far exceeds what is funded. Most of his daily support is provided by his wife, Gill, who has a nursing background and has taken on the role of primary carer…

Faced with the prospect of further decline without adequate support, Mr Lewis has chosen to begin the voluntary assisted dying process. He has been clear that the decision is not driven by a lack of will to live, but by the absence of appropriate care options that would allow him to remain at home with dignity.

Yeah, just like a hip replacement! This same kind of abandonment has happened in Canada, too. But euthanasia? Never a problem of access! Is it any wonder that disability rights activists oppose hastened death?

We keep hearing the magic word, “choice,” in this debate. Sometimes that word has as much meaning as it does for cattle being herded into slaughterhouse chutes.

 

The tortuous attempted passage of assisted suicide from "choice" to medicine.

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

Considering the enormous harms of treating assisted death literally as medical care; and further considering the apparent democratic support of assisted death conceived as a personal choice: it is important to insist on the logical illegitimacy of binding these two together in the hybrid MAID construct.

Indeed, it is entirely mistaken to suggest that the respect of personal choice might justify a medical paradigm of assisted death.

This is because (as I believe we will all agree) the choice to end one's life is intensely personal and subjective. There is no objective way to account for why one person will wish to end their life, while another, in apparently identical circumstances, will obstinately seek to survive.

By way of contrast, however, the medical justification of assisted death absolutely requires an objective foundation.

There is, therefore no coherent logical bridge between the two.

Let us consider, for example, the completely natural attempt to justify some limited class of assisted deaths by distinguishing between ordinary (pathological) suicide, and a second suggested form resulting from legitimate rational thought.[1] [2]

There are, certainly, a number of weaknesses with this theory.[3] [4] In particular, there persists the stubborn fact that we can never really know whether an eligible person is actually requesting death for the reasons alleged, or for entirely different ones.

(Some persons in Canada, for example, have apparently used their medical eligibility, for MAID, in order to escape poverty.)

Similarly, any apparently acceptable requests might still, nonetheless, mask choices which are not rational at all (but are the fruit of mental disturbance).

And yet, the crucially important significance of "rational suicide", in the present context, lies not in these, but in our reaction to people choosing differently in the same situations.

For it is difficult to maintain that one person is behaving in an objectively rational manner (in choosing assisted death) without also concluding that another person, making the opposite choice (of continued survival under similar circumstances) would be acting "irrationally".

Under a paradigm of sovereign personal choice, such problems simply disappear in the shrouds of subjective mystery. But in the medical world --where clearly indicated actions are unambiguously deemed rational to pursue, and irrational to avoid-- these same difficulties are intractable.

In the end, the common enabling mechanism of MAID --as both choice and medicine-- lies merely in the canonical application of politically established eligibility criteria.

As a matter of choice: any eligible patient's desire must be honored.

As a matter of medicine, however: doctors are expected to consider the proposition and prescription of euthanasia as an objectively beneficial treatment for all eligible patients, including that vast majority who do not embrace the rationality of their own deaths, and who would never spontaneously make such a request.

Clearly, the second of these propositions cannot reasonably be derived from the first.

And so also, assisted death as essential, guaranteed medical care, cannot coherently be derived from assisted death, as a subjectively justified liberty of choice.

In short, medicine cannot possibly moderate the ills of choice. Nor can choice justify what is done in the name of medicine.

Through the evil alchemy of Medical Aid in Dying, the faults of each are simply added (and even multiplied) one with the other.

[1] Giwa, Al, A complete treatise on rational suicide, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai https://www.elsevier.es/en-revista-bioethics-update-232-articulo-a-complete-treatise-on-rational-S2395938X1930021X

[2] Friesen, Pheobe, Medically Assisted Dying and Suicide: How Are They Different, and How Are They Similar?, The Hastings Center Report, 18 February 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1083

[3] Stephen Ginn, Annabel Price, Lauren Rayner, Gareth S. Owen, Richard D. Hayes, Matthew Hotopf, William Lee, Senior doctors' opinions of rational suicide, Journal of Medical Ethics, September 2011, 37(12):723-6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51678637_Senior_doctors'_opinions_of_rational_suicide

[4] Cynthia M.A. Geppert, Rational Suicide? Case Consultation and Quiz Commentary, July 27, 2015, Psychiatric Times, Vol 32 No 7, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/rational-suicide-case-consultation-and-quiz-commentary

My Personal Experience With Suicide Prevention

This article was published by Choiceisanillusion on November 15, 2025

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

In another life, most likely in 1980 when I was 23 years old, I talked three young men down from suicide.

What I think happened is that a final exit network person had given them my phone number by mistake. This was before the age of caller ID.

I was contacted by each of the three young men over a period of time, each one wanting assistance to kill himself.

I called a suicide prevention person to ask what I should do, i.e., with regard to the first one. The person told me to ask the suicidal person why? To engage him.

Green Lake Park

So that’s what I did. I met each young man at a local park, which I thought would be safe for me. I asked each young man why, and then I tried to expand to other topics.

The last one I got him laughing. He told me that he no longer felt like killing himself.

To the best of my knowledge they all lived, but I don't know for sure.

Kelsi Sheren: MAID and the Cost of Abandonment

No to euthanasia for mental illness.

Kelsi Sheren - Parliamentary Press Gallery Speech for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in support of Bill C-218, the bill that will prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone, on October 28, 2025. Kelsi's speech begins at 10 minutes 15 seconds.

Sign the petition supporting Bill C-218 (Petition Link).

Hi everyone, my name is Kelsi Sheren.

When I was 18 I put the uniform on and deployed to Afghanistan at 19 I understood that I might die for my country.

What I didn’t understand was that one day, my own government would quietly offer to help me do it.

I’m here today as a Canadian combat veteran. I live with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury, major depressive disorder, treatment resistant depression and hearing loss…..that weight never really leaves. I'm 100% disabled. I’ve seen what war does not just overseas, but long after you come home. 

And what I’m seeing now is something I never thought possible in Canada.

Behind closed doors, in quiet conversations, veterans are being offered Medical Assistance in Dying not therapy, not recovery, but death.

And today, Senator Pamela Wallin is hosting a back door closed meeting with the pro death cult Dying with Dignity. She is helping them lobby to convince more MP’s that they should be voting to kill more vulnerable, disabled Canadians starting in 2027.

We’re told it’s compassion. We’re told it’s “a choice.” But when someone’s drowning in trauma and desperation that’s not choice. That’s coercion wearing a polite face.

I’ve spoken with veterans who reached out for help asking for therapy, for treatment, for hope. And what they got instead was an offer to end their life.

This is not one or two. This is well documented of over 20 and growing., I know this because I report on it daily and people trust me with their stories.

Imagine how deep that hopelessness must go when your own country looks at you and decides that death is the best it can give you.

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening. And it’s not just veterans.

People with disabilities, with chronic pain, depression, or poverty they’re being told the same thing.

They’re being nudged toward death because supporting them is seen as too expensive, too inconvenient.

This is the uncomfortable truth.. this is not compassion when death is offered instead of care. It’s a moral rot disguised as mercy.

And while all this is happening, Canada still refuses to give veterans access to the treatments that could actually save lives treatments like psychedelic-assisted therapy.

Evidence-based. Safe. Effective. Used and studied around the world to treat PTSD and trauma.

But here? Here we’re told no. Here we’re told to suffer quietly.

Or worse — we’re told to die “with dignity.”

That’s not dignity. That’s policy-driven despair, driven by sick people to hurt more.

This isn’t healthcare. This is surrender. And it sends a clear message: Your life costs too much.

Veterans are dying. People with disabilities are dying. Not because they want to but because they’ve been convinced their lives no longer matter by the entire healthcare system, lobby groups and their government.

Canada doesn’t even track veteran suicides. I know this, because I am testifying to just that later today. Think about that. We send soldiers to war, and when they come home broken, we stop counting.

It’s easier not to face the truth when you refuse to measure it.

This is a government choosing death over duty every single day.

Veterans and civilians don’t need MAID. We need meaning. We need community, We need real treatment. We need a country that still believes we’re worth saving.

So let’s stop calling this “choice.” Because it’s not a choice when survival isn’t an option.

This isn’t about dying with dignity, giving up and quitting when life gets hard.

We want a life with real dignity and rolling back the expansion of MAiD is the only way to achieve that.

Thank you.

Picture: (Dr Paul Saba, Alex Schadenberg, Kelsi Sheren, Gordon Friesen)

Delaware Residents with Money Will Be Rendered Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs (HB 140)

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on January 24, 2025.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

“Aid in Dying” has been a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia since at least 1992.

The American Medical Association states that: "physician-assisted suicide" occurs when a doctor facilitates a patient’s death by providing the means or information to enable a patient to perform the life-ending act. "Euthanasia" is the administration of a lethal agent to kill another person.

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Reported motives have included: the “thrill” of getting other people to kill themselves; and wanting to see another person die.

The proposed Delaware Act (HB 140) has a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no required oversight. No witness, not even a doctor or other medical person is required to be present at a patient's death.

The proposed drugs used to kill patients are water or alcohol soluble. This is significant because the drugs used can thereby be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without the person's consent. If the person objected or struggled against administration, would anyone know?”

Delaware law prevents a person who kills another person, i.e., commits homicide, from inheriting from the person that he or she killed. The rationale is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.

HB 140, however, states that: a person who intentionally kills another person will be allowed to inherit. This is because deaths occurring pursuant to HB 140 will be treated as natural, as if the person who died, had died from natural causes, as opposed to a lethal overdose. In the event of the Act’s passage, Delaware residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, will be rendered sitting ducks to their heirs. Passage of the Act will create a perfect crime.

Senator Blakespear removed assisted suicide expansion bill.

The following article was published by Choice is an Illusion.

California Senate Chamber

Senator Catherine Blakespear has removed proposed Senate Bill 1196, seeking to expand assisted suicide and euthanasia in California, from consideration prior to its first hearing Blakespear said in a statement.

"At this point, there is a reluctance from many around me to take up this discussion, and the future is unclear,”

“The topic, however, remains of great interest to me and to those who have supported this bill thus far.”

Senator Susan Eggman, who authored the original act in 2016, commented that pushing forward now would would create a risk of pushback. She stated:

While I have compassion for those desiring further change, pushing for too much too soon puts CA [California] & the country at risk of losing the gains we have made for personal autonomy....

With just a few weeks left to pass bills through policy committees before the Legislature's summer recess, it's unlikely another lawmaker would propos[e] a similar measure this year.

Link to the original article.

Senate Bill 1196 shows us the direction of the American euthanasia lobby. The Bill was only withdrawn because, as Senator Eggman stated it was "pushing for too much too soon."

Article: Good news: California assisted suicide expansion bill is dead. (Link)

Canada's MAiD law. The philosophical right to die is colliding with troubling decisions.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Scott Shackford published on September 7 by reason.com, a site that promotes free minds and free markets, challenges Canada's current euthanasia regime. Shackford doesn't oppose euthanasia but he states that when the government runs the system, the right of citizens to end their own suffering can be twisted to serve the state.

Shackford begins by explaining how he believes that euthanasia allows for individuals to control their body. I suggest that he is philosophically wrong since MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) requires the involvement of another person, usually a medical practitioner, to be directly involved with ending a person's life. Shackford is stating in the article how the philosophical right to die argument is colliding with troubling decisions. Shackford writes:

Unfortunately, the philosophical argument for the right to die can also end up colliding with troubling decisions in a country where the government funds and controls access to healthcare. That is reportedly happening in Canada, where some citizens say health officials are actively encouraging people with disabilities and other chronic medical issues to consider suicide.

According to the Associated Press, hospitals are raising the possibility of assisted suicide with patients who hadn't asked about it. These conversations are not motivated by quality of life but health care costs.

Shackford recounts the Roger Foley experience to illustrate his point.

Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

"Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."

Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Shackford then explains that a 2017 study indicated that Canada's universal healthcare system would save between 34 to 136.8 million dollars per year through the use of euthanasia. Shackford suggests that healthcare savings is one of the reaons euthanasia is promoted.

Shackford recounts the story of Alan Nichols whose family believes was not of sound mind when he requested and died by euthanasia in 2019. Shackford writes:

Last June, the Medical Assistance in Dying Committee heard from Trish Nichols, whose suicidal and severely mentally ill brother Alan was given assisted death at a Chilliwack, B.C., hospital in 2019, at a time when MAID was still limited only to Canadians with a terminal illness.

Alan had been taken by his family to the hospital only days before to recover from a psychiatric episode, and in the minutes before he received a lethal injection, Trish described Alan screaming uncontrollably, despite the hospital's assurances that he had opted for a medically assisted death while "of sound mind."

Remember, Shackford believes in individual freedom. Shackford concludes:

In absence of significant "freedom" to pursue individualized health care options, Canada is now potentially violating citizens' rights in the exact opposite direction than it was before. People have the right to die but also the right to continue living in the face of medical adversity. That Canada's publicly-operated health care system is unable to efficiently meet the needs of citizens makes all these health worker interactions about euthanasia inherently suspect.

Shackford's philosophical concepts are debatable, but his conclusion that Canada is potentially violating citizens' rights in the exact opposite direction is absolutely correct. Many people with disabilities are considering death by euthanasia because they are unable to obtain the necessary treatment to live or they are living in such poverty that death appears to be the better option.

Reject Connecticut Bill No. 88, an Act Concerning Aid in Dying for Terminally Ill Patients.

Link to the original document from Margaret Dore (Link).

I. INTRODUCTION

I am an attorney and president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. I have personally appeared and testified against these practices in 20 US states and also internationally.’

The proposed Act, Raised Bill No. 88, seeks to legalize physician—assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. This will be on both a voluntary and involuntary basis.

The Act is based on similar acts in Oregon and Washington State. I urge you to protect yourselves and the people you care about. Vote “‘No” to reject Raised Bill No. 88.

II. DEFINITIONS

A. Physician-Assisted Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The Act does not define physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide or euthanasia. Per the American Medical Association, “‘physician—assisted suicide” occurs when a physician “facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.” For example:

[T]he physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide.

“Assisted suicide” is a general term in which the assisting person is not necessarily a physician. “Euthanasia” is the administration of a lethal agent by another person.

B. Aid in Dying

“Aid in dying” has been a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia since at least l992. The proposed act defines aid in dying as follows:

“Aid in dying” means the medical practice of a physician prescribing medication to a qualified patient who is terminally ill, which medication a qualified patient may self-administer to bring about his or her death. (Emphasis added)

Note that per this definition, self—administration is allowed, but not mandated.

C. Withholding or Withdrawing Treatment

Withholding or withdrawing treatment (“pulling the plug”) is not euthanasia if the purpose is to remove burdensome treatment, as opposed to an intent to kill the patient. More importantly, the individual will not necessarily die. Consider this quote from Washington State regarding a man removed from a ventilator:

[I]nstead of dying as expected, [he] slowly began to get better.

III. HOW THE ACT WORKS

A. Overview

The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death.

Resulting death will be reported as natural on the patient’s death certificate. Reports issued by the Department of Public Health will not contain identifying information of any patient or health care provider. Any data collected by the Department will not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

B. “Eligible” Persons May Have Years or Decades to Live

The Act applies to persons with a “terminal illness,” meaning those predicted to have less than six months to live.’ Such persons may in fact have years or decades to live. This is true based on the Oregon and Washington experience with their similar Acts, and common knowledge that predictions of life expectancy can be wrong, sometimes way wrong.’

Patients may also have years or decades to live because treatment can lead to recovery. A well known example is Jeanette Hall. In 2000, she made a settled decision to use Oregon’s Act. Her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead, such that she is alive today. In a recent declaration, she states:

It has now been 21 years since my diagnosis. If [my doctor] had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.’

C. Assisting Persons Can Have an Agenda

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Consider Tarnmy Sawyer, trustee for Thomas Middleton in Oregon. Two days after his death by legal assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.’ Consider also Graham Morant, convicted of counseling his wife to kill herself in Australia, to get the life insurance. The Court found:

[Y]ou counselled and aided your wife to kill herself because you wanted ... the 1.4 million.

Medical professionals too can have an agenda. New York physician, Michael Swango, got a thrill from killing his patients.’ Consider also Harold Shipman, a doctor in the UK, who not only killed his patients, but stole from them and in one case made himself a beneficiary of the patient’s will.’

D. Even if the Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?

The Act has a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose.’ Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. No witness, not even a doctor, is required to be present at the death.

In addition, the drugs used are water or alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon [and with the proposed Connecticut Act], perpetrators can . . . take a “legal” route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over administration. Even if the patient struggled, “who would know?” (Emphasis added

E. The Act Allows Euthanasia as Traditionally Defined

1. Self-administration is not required

The Act repeatedly describes the lethal dose as being self— administered. There is no language, however, that self-administration is required.

2. The lethal dose is “medication”

The proposed Act repeatedly refers to the lethal dose as “medication” to end a patient’s life. The lethal dose is also a prescription drug (or drugs) . Generally accepted medical practice allows doctors and family members to administer prescription drugs to a patient. If the medication/prescription drug administered is a lethal dose, this is euthanasia as traditionally defined.

3. The Americans With Disability Act would override any prohibition of euthanasia

The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is a US federal civil rights law “that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services.” Here, the proposed Act refers to the lethal dose as a medication to be prescribed, thereby rendering it a medical service.

Per the ADA, medical care providers are required “to make their services available in an accessible manner.” This includes:

reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to make health care services fully available to individuals with disabilities, unless the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services ...

Per the proposed Act, the fundamental nature of the services is the provision of a lethal dose of medication to end a patient’s life. If, for the purpose of argument, the proposed Act can be read as requiring self—administration, the ADA would nonetheless require providers to make a reasonable modification for individuals unable to self-administer. For example, by providing the assistance of another person to administer the lethal dose. This would be euthanasia as traditionally defined.

IV. ACTIONS TAKEN IN “ACCOPDANCE” WITH THE ACT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE

The Act states:

(c) Any actions taken in accordance with sections 1 to 13, inclusive, of this act or sections 15 to 19, inclusive, of this act, do not, for any purposes, constitute suicide [or] homicide (Emphasis added)

The Act does not define accordance. Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention."

In other words, a mere thought or intention to comply with the Act is sufficient to prevent a death from being treated as suicide or homicide. If enacted, actions taken in accordance with the Act will not constitute suicide or homicide as a matter of law.

V. DEATHS WILL BE “NATURAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW

Connecticut requires the manner of a person’s death to be reported as one of six categories, five of which are substantive: (1) homicide; (2) suicide; (3) accidental; (4) natural; and (5) therapeutic complication. The sixth category is “undetermined."

As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act will not constitute suicide or homicide as a matter of law. The death will also not be due to a therapeutic complication or accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural” as the only remaining substantive cause of death. The official legal manner of death will be natural as a matter of law.

VI. DR. SHIPMAN AND THE CALL FOR DEATH CERTIFICATE REFORM

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Shipman’s conduct, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.” The inquiry also found:

that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added)

Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety. Instead, the proposed Act moves in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. If enacted, family members and other persons will be able to kill under mandatory legal cover.

VII. PARTICIPANTS IN THE PATIENT’S DEATH WILL BE ALLOWED TO INHERIT

Connecticut Code Section 45a—447 does not allow a person guilty of killing another person (the victim) to inherit from that person. Deaths occurring in accordance with the Act, however, are natural as a matter of law. More to the point, straight up perpetrators will be allowed to inherit from a victim so long as the killing is done pursuant to the Act.

VIII. CONCLUSION

If passed into law, the proposed Act will apply to people predicted to have less than six months to live, some of whom will in fact have years or decades to live.

Assisting persons can have an agenda, with more obvious reasons being inheritance and life insurance, but also, as in the case of Dr. Swango, the thrill of seeing someone die. The lack of required oversight at the death, coupled with the mandatory falsification of the death certificate and an otherwise near complete lack of transparency, will create a perfect crime in which perpetrators will be legally allowed to inherit.

The Act’s passage will render people with money, meaning the middle class and above, sitting ducks to their heirs and other financial predators. Protect yourselves and the people you care about. Say “No” to Raised Bill 88.

Respectfully Submitted,

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore . org
www.choiceillusion. org
3 Sunset Plaza, Unit B
Kalispell MT 59901
206 697 1217

Link to the original document from Margaret Dore (Link).

Constitutional Challenge Brief Filed in New Jersey Euthanasia Appeal

BELLEVUE, WA, USA, July 20, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/

Attorney Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought against assisted suicide and euthanasia legalization throughout the United States, and internationally, has released the following statement in connection with the filing of a constitutional challenge amicus brief, which seeks to invalidate New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The case, Petro et al v. Grewal, is pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, A-003837-19.

“‘Aid in dying’ is a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. The amicus brief argues that the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act is stacked against the individual, not limited to people near death and unconstitutional due to the way it was enacted.

“The Act is based on similar acts in Oregon and Washington State. Oregon’s act went into effect in 1997. Washington’s nearly identical act went into effect in 2009.

“All three acts apply to persons with a six month or less life expectancy. Such persons may in fact have years or decades to live.

“A well known example is Jeanette Hall. In 2000, she made a settled decision to use Oregon’s act. Her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead, such that she is alive today, twenty-one years later.

“The New Jersey Constitution protects against the enactment of misleading legislation, which is what occurred here. The Act’s title and findings are misleading with regard to the Act's content, which renders the Act unconstitutional.

“The New Jersey Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to dying people. Per the Act’s title, it was not clear that the Act would legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

“Per the Attorney General, the Act applies ‘only to those individuals, both patients and providers, who voluntarily elect to participate in the Act’s provisions.’ As for the trial judge, he was not persuaded that the Act specifically provides for assisted suicide and euthanasia. But the Act is not required to be voluntary. The Act is about assisted suicide and euthanasia.

“The Act's title also uses the phrase, ‘aid in dying,’ which means assisted suicide and euthanasia.

“The Act has no required oversight over administration of the lethal dose. No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death.

“The drugs used are water and/or alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

"Persons assisting a suicide or engaging in euthanasia can have an agenda. Consider Tami Sawyer, trustee for Thomas Middleton in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. Two days after his death by assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.

“Consider also Graham Morant, who was convicted of counseling his wife to kill herself in Australia. His motive: to get the life insurance.

“The New Jersey Act has a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. No witness, not even a doctor is required to be present at the death. If the patient objects or even struggles, who would know?

“Deaths pursuant to the Act, are reported as natural on the death certificate. With this situation, a patient’s heir, who participates in the patient’s death, is allowed to inherit.

“With passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other financial predators. Passage of the Act has created a perfect crime.”

For more detailed information, read Margaret Dore's brief.

Link to the media release (Link).

Margaret Dore
Choice is an Illusion
+1 206-697-1217

Beyond C-7 and death on demand -- competent choice is the new frontier, or death with no demand

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen, EPC board member
http://www.euthanasiediscussion.net/

Euthanasia has two faces in Canada. The first is Voluntary Euthanasia, which is a practice based upon the assumed right of an individual to control his, or her, own destiny. Medical Assistance in Dying, on the other hand (as defined in Quebec Bill 52, 2014), is a benign medical procedure, objectively indicated in cases involving “intolerable suffering” and “irremediable decline”.

Medical Assistance in Dying, therefore, is not simply a “horse of a different colour”, intruding upon our earlier assumptions. It is, in fact, an entirely different animal. For the desirability of medical procedures is not a function of the patient’s will. Wounds are bound in certain fashions, not because the patient wishes it to be so, but because clinical methods have so evolved through the experience of medical theory and practice. It doesn’t matter whether a patient is “capable”, or even conscious: wounds will be bound in the same manner. More generally: specific medical acts are practiced, in specific circumstances, because that is the correct medical thing to do. And accordingly, in virtue of the political definition of euthanasia (as a benign and high priority medical act): it is now a legal and professional fact that euthanasia is considered the “right” thing to do in cases of suffering and decline.

There was, of course, for a time, another requirement for the medical indication of euthanasia, which was the presence of a “reasonably foreseeable death” (as implied in the Quebec definition of “end of life” care, and as murkily defined in Canadian Bill C-14). With the passage of Bill C-7, however, that requirement is now swept away. All that remains of earlier, socially demanded “safeguards”, at this point, is the requirement that the person be either “competent” or “capable”, to “voluntarily request” or to “give informed consent” to euthanasia (depending in each case, on which line of that legislation we are reading).

I will not embark, here, on a discussion of the intended meaning of these divergent terms (even though they are highly significant), because I do not want to lose sight of this one main point : that it has always been assumed -- as the fundamental justification for legalization -- that Physician-Assisted-Suicide, come Voluntary-Euthanasia, come Medical-Assistance-in-Dying, must be the accomplishment of a fully competent and informed choice.

However, As I began by writing, euthanasia practice has two faces in Canada; and has actually been defined in two different and contradictory ways.

As stated above: clinically indicated medical procedures (to squarely face this unsettling horn of the dilemma) have no dependence upon choice, informed or otherwise. Quite to the contrary. In the case where a person is “incapable” of choosing for themselves, it is our collective duty and sacred responsibility to choose for them. In all probability, therefore, the next stop on the euthanasia train will involve this inevitable showdown between “competent choice”, and what our utilitarian brethren would qualify as “good medicine”; a central conflict within existing law that must apparently be settled by clarifying legislation, or through the courts.

But what are the practical implications of these facts (or, to be plain: So what)?

Simply stated: Euthanasia, in Canada, now provides the conceptual framework for killing the entire population of “incapable” persons among us.

And how so? Because “incapacity” is itself a “grievous and irremediable” condition, normally accompanied by “intolerable suffering” (according to the exterior judgement of those tasked with the care of such individuals). The only outstanding requirement, therefore, would be a judicially sanctioned affirmation of the need to allow substitution of judgement, for competent consent (where this latter is impossible).

And that means what to me?

Sixteen years ago, there was a famous case in Florida, involving a brain injured lady named Terri Schiavo. Concerned people, at that time, either defended, or lamented, the “medical” decision to withdraw food and fluids from Terri from (against the wishes of her parents, but in harmony with those of her husband). My personal opinion, I believe, although different from either faction in the absolute sense, still holds some merit. For I was sensitive to what Terri meant for my life in society. If, as I believed, Terri was in a vegetative state, then removing life-support would cause no harm. However, keeping people like Terri, alive, with simple food and fluid, provides the guarantee that others in a more questionable state would also be cared for. And thus, by degrees, I came to believe that Terri’s survival would guarantee my own survival, should I have the unfortunate luck to find myself hospitalized in an ambiguous condition, and perhaps, faced with professionals of a more determined and “realistic” utilitarian persuasion.

Already, at that time, therefore, essential questions were being asked regarding where exactly to draw the line in protecting the physical and social security of the “most vulnerable”. However, with the idea of Medically Administered Death (MAD) we have taken a giant step beyond the context described. And that is because Terri was already considered as “dead” and therefore could not be “killed”. Euthanasia, on the contrary, as defined in Canada, allows killing dependant people who are clearly alive, in every legal sense of the term. And that represents a quantum leap in both ethics and practice.

A call to proactive mobilization

This question, I believe, is of the greatest possible importance. It is also of the greatest urgency. For we are already arguing the “capability” boundary (mature minors, and advance directives). Indeed, we have already overstepped that boundary in the case of psychiatric patients.

Happily, this time there will be no need to fight a depressing rear-guard delaying action similar to our recent disappointment with “foreseeable death”. In that case, we were clearly doomed to failure because autonomous choice, and utilitarian medical ethics, were fully aligned against us. With regards to the “capability” question, however, we can truly “sock it to them”! Clearly, a reputed “right” of competent choice can NEVER justify the slaughter of the incompetent; we must demand positive legislative clarification of these ambiguities and contradictions. Immediately. Now. What is it to be (we must ask)? Is MAID an affirmation of sovereign personal choice? Or is it a medical scheme to end "suffering" by killing?

Entirely new strategic possibilities are opened with these questions; having now conceded (perforce) the central question of “freedom”, we will now be free ourselves, to reach many well meaning people who have steadfastly ignored our warnings to this point; now, that is, that the dominoes are threatening to fall closer to home. For although it might seem that the medical industry could be rationalized with euthanasia as a safety valve, or that the resources saved on the “irremediable” might be spent better elsewhere, for other interests: sooner or later, such opportunistic calculations will inevitably turn and bite. “Me today, you tomorrow” is how Alexandr Solzhenitsyn recorded the cynical catch-phrase of his Bolshevik tormentors. Or as German pastor Martin Niemoller phrased a similar idea: “First they came for the socialists ...”

It is my belief, indeed, that if we do not defend this bright line of competent choice -- together, right now -- then sooner, or later, we can expect “them” to come for us all.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal,