Honouring Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE).

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE) passed away two weeks ago but tomorrow is his funeral.

For me, Kevin was a trusted colleague and friend who I will always miss. I learned a lot from Kevin and I will carry those lessons with me forever.

Kevin accepted many leadership roles and he was an example of what can be done when people work together. Kevin was the director of EPC - International, the director of Hope Ireland and the past director of EPC - Europe.

Spokesperson for
Not Dead Yet UK

Kevin was also a key leader with Not Dead Yet - UK and acted as their spokesperson for several of their successful campaigns.

Kevin's professional background gave his approach to the debate on how to care for and support people with terminal and incurable illnesses and disabilities a particularly well-rounded quality. From disability (Disability Wales; Disability Rights Commission; Inclusion21; Not Dead Yet UK) to adoption (the Welsh Government's Adoption Expert Advisory Group; St David's Children's Society), not to mention five years with the Welsh Ambulance Trust, Kevin's outlook was firmly rooted in seeking answers to a single question: 'how can we as a society work to support and uphold the value of every person around us?' This was his life's work, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised. (borrowed from the Care Not Killing Alliance)

Kevin was a great communicator. Kevin wrote many articles, he did many debates, he was interviewed on countless occasions and he provided excellent conference speeches. Here are links to his recent articles:

• Judgement day in Supreme Court of Canada decision - Disability discrimination to death. (July 31, 2015).
• Opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide based on evidence of disability discrimination. (July 2, 2015).
• Belgium euthanasia leads to a decline of society. (June 26, 2015).
• Assisted suicide for disabled people - Democracy in Britain? (June 23, 2015).
• Let's have an open, honest and balanced conversation on assisted suicide in Ireland. (May 5, 2015).
• Level headed assisted suicide debate based on real evidence not misplaced emotion. (May 4, 2015).
• Deep sedation: France is in danger of buying a deadly illusion. (March 17, 2015).
• Conversation with Terry Pratchett. (March 13, 2015).
• Canadian Supreme Court condemns disabled people to death. (February 20, 2015).
• Assisted suicide campaigners' deaths prove we do not need to change assisted suicide laws. (January 7, 2015).

Hope Ireland conference

Kevin was a collaborator. Kevin knew that success came through activating many people who have different perspectives. Kevin knew that there were many reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. He was most comfortable speaking from his personal experience with disability, but he was also incredibly effective at reaching out to multiple political points of view.

Kevin was a leader. Kevin knew the direction that we needed to go and he shared his wisdom with everyone who he worked with. He had a way of listening to perspectives and carefully correcting false ideas. Several leaders have shared with me the way that Kevin would help them and advise them in their advocacy. He was a patient leader, even when he didn't agree.

Launching EPC Europe in Brussels

Kevin was a family man and my friend. My experience with Kevin was that he put the needs of his family, especially his wife Fabienne, before himself. He was proud of his children, Terry, Gerry and Sue. He was sick for sometime, but he shared with me his concern for his family and placed them ahead of himself.

There are so many people who experienced Kevin, as a gifted friend, in their lives. I for one, will always be thankful for the opportunity of having him in my life.

Belgium: Euthanasia and Palliative Care - strange bedfellows

This article was originally published on the HOPE Australia website.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, the Director of Hope Australia.

In November 2013, I had the distinct pleasure of travelling to Brussels for the launch of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Europe at the EU Parliament.

The following evening my colleague and EPC International Chair, Alex Schadenberg joined Carine Brochier in debating Belgian euthanasia founders Dr Jan Berheim and Professor Etienne Vermeersch.

There was nothing veiled in what Bernheim or Vermeersch said that night. There's a subtle arrogance, it seems, when speaking with the knowledge that virtually a whole country agrees.

Bernheim told the audience that it was he who first went to London, to visit Dame Cicely Saunders, with the intention to bring palliative care to Belgium precisely because he saw this as a way to usher in euthanasia. Whether his actions and intentions were publicly known at the time, whether he is 'gilding the lily' or whether in fact the Belgian medical system fell for the trojan trap or went willingly is moot, I guess.

Whether as a direct result of Bernheim's actions or whether simply a matter of pro-euthanasia spin, we often here the claim that euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are simply additional, complementary tools in a palliative physician's toolkit. We are being asked here to swallow a falsehood: that caring can include killing.

Reflecting upon the Belgian experiment, we are also told that euthanasia and assisted suicide would actually improve palliative care. Precisely how is never explained. But the reality that palliative medicine in Holland and Belgium is up there with the best in Europe tends to add credence to such a claim.

But does it?

This month in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, a paper entitled, Between Palliative Care and Euthanasia (Mortier, Leiva, Cohen-Almagor & Lemmens) looks at the most recent euthanasia data (2012-2013) and calls on "politicians, the medical profession, and juridical authorities soberly (to) reflect on the developments that have taken place since 2002."

Looking at all euthanasia deaths, the authors observe:

• that only 40 percent (1,283 out of 3,239) of the euthanized patients had a visit by a palliative care team,
• barely 12 percent (396 out of 3,239) had a visit by a palliative care specialist,
• just 9 percent (307 out of 3,239) were consulted by a psychiatrist (Commission Fédérale de Contrôle et d’Évaluation de l’Euthanasie 2014).

They conclude that: 

"almost 40 percent of the patients who received euthanasia did not see a palliative care specialist nor interacted with a palliative care team." 

"The conclusion that Belgium is a palliative care role model for the world is an overstatement."

This data fits well with the observation of Dutch Professor, Theo Boer that, in his country, euthanasia is ‘on the way to becoming a default mode of dying for cancer patients’. In 2012, a spokesperson for the Royal Dutch Medical Association admitted that: 

“Euthanasia has become the central point of conversation between a doctor and a patient who is suffering when it should be seen as a "last resort".

Wales National Assembly rejects assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick speaking
at the European parliament.

Congratulations to Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick and Not Dead Yet - UK for their part in defeating the assisted suicide vote today.

A vote on whether to propose a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated in the Wales National Assembly today by a vote of 21 to 12.

Dr Fitzpatrick, who has lived most of his professional life in Wales, communicated with members of the National Assembly.

Dr Fitzpatrick is the Director of EPC - International and the spokesperson for the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet - UK.

The fear of challenging the Belgian euthanasia law.

By: Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick - Not Dead Yet UK and Director of EPC - Europe.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

People in Belgium more or less ‘go along’ with the idea of euthanasia, even as the practice of euthanasia becomes more than problematic.

Nurses like Claire-Maire Luu-Etchecopar, who dare to ask questions, are threatened with losing not just their jobs in a particular ward or hospital, but in the healthcare system in Belgium. In effect, their whole careers and their livelihoods are threatened. It takes a special courage to be a whistle-blower concerning euthanasia in Belgium.

Scratch the surface in other places and a culture of fear and suppression in Belgium appears. Critics of Belgium’s euthanasia policies feel they cannot afford to do so in public, for the results appear dire. Senior consultants and journalists are afraid to even have a cup of coffee to discuss their worries.

But even when people and families avail themselves of Belgium’s euthanasia programme, either wholeheartedly or perhaps more commonly, uneasily but still willingly, there are stories to chill the spine.

One woman who attended our EPC Europe seminar last May told us her mother had chosen a euthanasia death. The doctor who was to do the euthanasia pushed a form towards her. It was the legal release of her mother’s brain to medical science. Neither she nor her mother wanted this. But the doctor refused to do the euthanasia if she did not sign it. Caught, but deeply unhappy, she signed.

Alex Schadenberg debating.

The idea that Belgium is a haven of good practice, any kind of standard for moral behaviour is risible. The absurdity of claiming Belgium as the pinnacle of ethical behaviour in euthanasia practice is all the more ridiculous when we hear how it actually affects lives, even when people ‘go along with it’. Never mind when they are horrified by it.

At the opening of the debate in Brussels in November (2013) I reminded the audience of the Irish thinker Edmund Burke’s phrase: 

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.’ 

That can seem harsh, but it is my firm belief that now is the moment for people in Belgium to come together and say ‘Stop!’ – otherwise it really will be too late.

Euthanasia in Belgium - Please Sign our Petition

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

More and more terrible evidence is emerging of what is really happening under the guise of Belgium’s euthanasia law. So we are calling on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

If you agree that Belgium should suspend the practice of euthanasia until more information is available about what is really going on please sign our petition to the Belgian Parliament. 

Petition: 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Europe calls on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

Background information

Belgium’s euthanasia law has now been extended to children of any age. Children under the age of eight barely have a concept of death and many teenagers especially if they are in a typically ‘rebellious’ frame of mind might not have a real grasp of the consequences of their actions.

Evidence now shows that older people with dementia are being euthanized in Belgium even though there can be no question of someone with dementia giving full and informed consent to their deaths.

There are other illegal practices happening in Belgium such as nurses performing euthanasia - and massive failure to report by doctors carrying out euthanasia (in 47% of cases). The leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium is also the president of the commission which is supposed to regulate the practice of euthanasia. This is a clear conflict of interest. He has had a complaint against him after he euthanized a depressed mother with no other illness.

Belgium saw a five-fold increase from 235 in 2003 (the first full year) to 1,432 in 2012.

The country is increasingly known not just for the steady annual rises in deaths, but also for the increasing proportion of deaths not prompted by terminal illness, including the notable 2013 cases of deaf-blind, transgender and depressed people being euthanized.

We are calling on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

Euthanasia: Hard cases make bad laws.

This article was originally published by MercatorNet on April 3, 2014.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - Executive Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide and Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.

The pro-euthanasia lobby often promotes media reports of people facing difficult prognoses who wish to end their lives rather than face inevitable deterioration. Such persons often become, for a short while, celebrities for a macabre cause. The media attention can even become addictive and provide, a distraction from their suffering or a raison d’etre.

But are these stories really a substantive reason for changing the law? I would argue, no.

In a debate in Launceston, Tasmania, a few years back a delightful woman on the other side of the debate told the story of her husband who had motor neurone disease and took his own life rather than face the trajectory of deterioration. She described the understood trajectory of MND in some detail. I imagine that she was describing a worst-case scenario.

One could easily understand the anguish of what her late husband was facing: he was a fascinating person with great achievements. When I met his wife and son I got the sense that he would have been a wonderful person to have met. I imagine the audience that night must have felt the same.

Yet, at the close of the evening when the audience had a chance to speak, a woman rose from the back of the auditorium and said that her husband had recently passed away after suffering with MND. She told the audience that his death was, “nothing like that”, referring, clearly to the earlier description.

More recently I received an email from a gentleman questioning how I could hold my opposition to euthanasia and describing the recent loss of his own mother. He said that she had been bereft of consciousness for the better part of seven years and that her passing was not dignified.

My mother-in-law had been similarly lacking consciousness for much longer than that, as I relayed by return email. Yet Mum had a very dignified passing. My conclusion was simply that his unfortunate experience was not, therefore, an argument for euthanasia at all.

Readers will recall the celebrated pleas of Englishman Tony Nicklinson a few years back which were played out in the British Courts over his wish to die. Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome. Yet at the same time a young man with the same condition told the media that while his life had significant limitations, he had a good life. He wanted to let people know that not all locked-in syndrome sufferers were like Nicklinson.

One can easily understand what might have been the young man’s concerns. If people think that all locked-in sufferers are desperate to die, then perhaps he won’t get the kind of care he would need to live if there were ever a medical emergency. Perhaps he simply wanted people to know that he wasn’t down in the dumps about his accident.

His motivation for speaking out was unclear but nonetheless poignant and timely. I doubt that people like Nicklinson would have considered the effect that their public cause would have on others with the same condition. Their focus is essentially on themselves. Understandable given the circumstances; but nevertheless, not the complete picture.

It is not the illness or the prognosis that is the driver for euthanasia in any of these cases. It has more to do with the person themselves and how they decide to cope with their pending or existing situation. It really is about their choices.

A few months back, another MND sufferer, Paul Chamberlain, became a cause celebre for the assisted suicide campaign in the UK. He was interviewed repeatedly on British media including a joint interview with Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – Europe. Once again we find the counter position put by other MND sufferers including former Springbok Rugby player, Joost van der Westhuizen.

“It's been a rollercoaster from day one and I know I'm on a deathbed from now on. I've had my highs and I have had my lows, but no more... It's only when you go through what I am going through that you understand that life is generous.”

Then there’s the story of Alistair Banks. Throughout his MND and up unto his death he wrote inspiring messages of hope. He said:

“Everyone I know with MND is trying to do positive things, otherwise they would sink into despair. It's a coping mechanism. Doing things means that you can pull in friends and family to share something both fun and rewarding.”

I have no doubt that some people die better than others, just as people deal with the dying and death of a loved one in many different ways. But these are not arguments for euthanasia. Rather, they suggest that we need to continue to learn better ways of caring and to make sure that quality care is universally available.

Autonomy is a good thing, but should we burden society with a euthanasia or assisted suicide law because some people – probably only a handful in any disease cohort – wish to choose another path? We may have decriminalised suicide, but we should never endorse it. All of humanity is diminished by a law that tells us that some people’s lives are less worthy of life than others. No man is an island.

The heart-wrenching stories of a few are compelling. But as arguments they are false.

There is no smear campaign against the Belgium euthanasia law – it is just that the truth hurts

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick
Director of EPC Europe and a leader of Not Dead Yet - UK

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

 To smear someone is to tell lies, or to reveal the dark things they do, for personal gain. No one is ‘smearing’ Wim Distelmans - as Prof Vermeersch claims in a Belgian publication. No-one is telling lies – we are telling the truth so people may realise what is really going on under the guise of ‘good, medical practice’ in Belgium. We seek no gain apart from that truth and the suspension of their terrible practice of euthanasia. 

Patients must feel completely safe when they go to doctors for help. It was originally believed that psychiatric, demented or depressed patients would not be targeted by the Belgian law. However, the Belgian Control Commission headed by Distelmans and which never investigates any of the euthanasia deaths reported to it, approves euthanasia in such cases today. (One study found that 47% of the euthanasia deaths are not reported). Tom Mortier’s mother was not ill apart from her depression. She was certainly not dying. But she died by the hands of Distelmans anyway. Just like the tortured transsexual, or the woman who was sexually abused by her treating psychiatrist; both euthanized as a response to their despair. Is this safe?

It is the worst kind of danger – when someone can facilitate your depressed wish to die. And then to have this same man in charge of the commission which is supposed to regulate euthanasia is the most fundamental conflict of interest. How do we know he is telling us everything when his commission has never referred even one reported euthanasia for investigation? Are we to believe there is never any doubt, ever?

Etienne Vermeersch

Vermeersch calls this ‘significant social and ethical progress’. I have a totally different opinion. For me, it is the clearest evidence of how far Belgium has fallen - into the worst moral decline. These people have no questions about their auto-satisfaction. To quote a much better philosopher than Vermeersch:

Philosophers with no suspicion that anything is beyond their professional competence, or may be too deep for their individual talent, ‘mistake [their] vices for the virtue of thinking radically, courageously...’, [and they] have contributed to a drive that feeds an aggressive and now much less self-reflective lobby, who make the same mistake of vice for virtue. (Rai Gaita, 1991)

They do not even stop to ask any more: can euthanasia really be right? In every case? Vermeersch himself stated on November 13, 2013 that ‘a man with no arms and no legs’ was right to want to die and it was his mission to help. He is clear, the euthanasia law in Belgium is for disabled people.

This is reflected in the British euthanasia lobby’s recent move to pretend that disabled people are in favour of legalizing assisted suicide. They used an out-of-date survey that did not even ask a question about euthanasia, and they recruited a disabled ‘patsy’ to front their propaganda. Yet all that work just confirms that the euthanasia lobby are seeking euthanasia in Britain for disabled people; nothing to do with terminal illness at all. So clear, so cynical.

There are so many questions that are being ignored. How, for example, do so many people find themselves in a ‘medically hopeless situation’ in Belgium? Has medicine failed them. Why has social care for disabled people been described as a human rights nightmare in Belgium by the European Social care Committee. Little wonder that people with disabilities are faced with no option at all – and just in case you think so, death is not an option, it is the end of all options.

Do doctors strive to do better medically? I believe most doctors do. But some say instead: 

‘We can do no more for you, so here, let us kill you’. 

The worst part is they call this ‘compassion’. Then they lie about anyone who asks questions or opposes them. They say we are cruel people. We are not cruel people. We are able to think, and we become afraid when these people get hold of us. Who wants to turn up in the emergency room and ask the doctor who might just save our lives ‘Are you a card-carrying member of the Euthanasia Lobby?’

We are simply saying: rather than concentrating on dying, we want dignified living.

For people who are not dying and for the tiny number of people (just 0.75% of all people who die in Belgium every year) who sadly experience refractory symptoms, real care might be deep sedation to allow a peaceful death. Even then there are still important questions, but good palliative care doctors say they can already help these unfortunate few.

Why must we legalize euthanasia at all? 

Laws, by their very nature, must be general – must cover every citizen – and when such laws result in the deaths of children or rebellious teenagers, they must be bad laws. A good and decent society protects its most vulnerable members – it does not simply say ‘Here’s a way to die’.

When someone is standing on a bridge and afraid of their future that they want to jump, only the cruel abandon them by saying ‘Great! Jump!’ or worse, actually push them off. Why then, when someone who is disabled, sick, depressed, or a child, and says ‘I want to die’ – why do we say to them ‘But of course you must die, we’ll even do it for you’? Who is the cruel one?

Belgium certainly is unrivalled in the world - but make no mistake, much of the world is horrified by how quickly and easily Belgians have slipped into this moral depth, where some people gleefully praise themselves for valuing death far more than life. How many more must be killed out of this twisted argument.

Dr Tom Mortier's mother was killed by Belgium's leading euthanasia doctor in 2012. An official complaint has now been launched against this doctor with Belgian medical authorities.

The following article was written by Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, the director of EPC - Europe with the cooperation of Tom Mortier and published on the EPC - Europe blog.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Just after their government legalised euthanasia for children of any age, Belgian medical authorities have received a formal complaint against the leading practitioner in Belgium, Dr Wim Distelmans. Although Dr Tom Mortier's mother had told him she was intending to go for euthanasia, he had been reassured that she would be refused, and she had not, so far as he knew, been accepted under Belgian criteria. In the end, she was killed by Distelmans in 2012 without Mortier's knowledge.

Tom Mortier

Mortier along with Dr Georges Casteur, allege that Distelmans did not have the expertise to evaluate whether Godelieva De Troyer, was ready for voluntary euthanasia. Distelmans is an oncologist, not a psychiatrist and was not even De Troyer's doctor beforehand. She was physically healthy and not suffering from physical pain, and had spoken with psychiatrists who thought that her emotional distress was at least treatable. In fact, she was taking medication at the time, which can cause suicidal ideation - so clearly a treatment plan was in place and it may have been causing serious side-effects. Distelmans, it seems, did not take that into account.

Tom Mortier's mother

The media generally describe euthanasia as a tender death with patients surrounded by loving family in agreement with the person's wish to commit suicide or be euthanized. But De Troyer refused to involve her family because, Tom Mortier believes, of her clinical depression which was very much exacerbated by her 'losses' - the break-up of her own relationship, and with the accompanying break from her family. That depression, he believes, might have been helped if she could have re-established contact with her children and grandchildren.

Euthanasia supporters argue that, under Belgian law, if the patient refuses, it would be a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality to contact the relatives. Mortier acknowledges this but is convinced that any doctor truly concerned about helping his mother should have insisted that this at least be tried, certainly before euthanasia could be considered. Distelmans is not a psychiatrist (but an oncologist): how could he be the judge of De Troyer's treatment, or the possible impact of that family contact?

Mortier also reports that two months before she died his mother made a donation of 2,500 Euros to the Life End Information Forum (LEIF) which Distelmans co-founded. 'Can it be right that patients give money to an organization where the chairman subsequently kills them?' he asks. Should anyone involved in euthanasia ever be open to accusations of profiteering? But regulation of euthanasia in Belgium is a huge issue.

In a bizarre twist, Distelmans administers euthanasia to many patients, yet he leads the commission which is supposed to investigate any failure to observe the euthanasia law! Surely, this is a clear conflict of interest? Especially when this commission has not prosecuted one single case brought before it (and remember only 53% are actually reported - the rest are not). And when former senators who voted for the euthanasia law are now in this commission. with nearly half of all assisted deaths being left unreported (illegal), nurses being involved in killing patients (illegal) and people with dementia who cannot possibly give informed consent also being euthanized - again illegal under Belgian law. This law is seriously compromised for adults never mind young children.

Now it is too late for the seriously depressed adult Godelieva De Troyer, and for Tom Mortier and his wife who took the call from the clinic announcing they had killed her mother-in-law and for their three young children.

Distelmans apparently did not wish to make any detailed comment to the media on the complaint, but he did point out that it was the first complaint which had ever been made against him, in 11 years of doing euthanasia.

Maybe that's because he has had free rein until now - what is needed now is more of the tenacity and sheer courage of people like Tom Mortier to expose the truth about what is really going on in the name of the law in Belgium.

Links to similar articles:

● Official complaint launched against Belgium euthanasia doctor.

● Depressed Belgian woman dies by euthanasia.

Council of Europe: Declaration condemning euthanasia for children in Belgium

Kevin Fitzpatrick: EPC - Europe: kevin@inclusion21.org

Link to the Council of Europe Declaration.

Parliamentary Assembly
Assemblée parlementaire

Doc. 13414
30 January 2014

Legalisation of euthanasia for children in Belgium

Written declaration No. 567

Considering the December 2013 vote in the Belgian Senate to approve by 50 votes to 17 a proposal to legalise euthanasia for children (without any age limit);

Bearing in mind that:

─  the Committee of Ministers welcomed in this respect paragraph 9 (c) of the Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1418 (1999), to "encourage the member States of the Council of Europe to respect and protect the dignity of terminally ill or dying persons in all respects by upholding the protection against intentionally taking the life of terminally ill or dying persons";

─  the Assembly, in its Resolution 1859 (2012) stated that "Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being  for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited",

The undersigned members of the Parliamentary Assembly are of the opinion that this vote in the Belgian Senate:

─  betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die;

─  mistakenly assumes that children are able give appropriate informed consent to euthanasia and that they can understand the grave meaning and complex consequences associated with such a decision;

─  promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.

Signed:

Legalising euthanasia threatens people with disabilities

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, Executive Director - EPC Europe

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Taking the life of a human being is always a terrible matter: some doctors, philosophers and others appear to have dismissed this as relevant to disabled people.

This is the radical step: some people, usually non-disabled people (but not exclusively so), judge other people (disabled people) as appropriate candidates for elimination, as having lives not worth living. The next steps are: ‘it would be a mercy to allow this no-longer-fully-paid-up person to die’; ‘it is the only compassionate thing to do’; ‘suicide or euthanasia is the morally right choice’.

Legalising assisted suicide is argued to be different from euthanasia law. This is at best, naive: but as one doctor has admitted: ‘...opponents [in Holland] argued that we were heading down a slippery slope to lethal injection where there was no ambiguity between killing and letting die. They were right...it was a matter of time until we considered the lethal injection.’ This is in his preface to a book of articles defending Dutch practice.[i]

Almost universally, those who die by euthanasia are disabled in some way. It is just false to say that ‘everyone who is like this’ will want to die. Those who despair especially at the time of their injury, most often adapt given sufficient time, and the right support. Only 1 out of every 4 or 5 doctors in A&E (emergency room) say they can imagine life as a quadriplegic, but 90% of quadriplegics say they are happy to be alive. The vast majority of disabled people want to live.

Laws, by their nature, must be general. This generality ‘this disabled person and all people like them want to die’ – this is the false move in legalising euthanasia, and the consequences are dire.

The President of France will face strong opposition to legalizing euthanasia.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A panel of French citizens recently recommended that the Government of France legalize assisted suicide and a limited form of euthanasia. The panel of 18 French citizens were chosen by a commercial polling firm to examine the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The decision of the panel of citizens supports the campaign promise made by French President François Hollande during the last election, but it contradicts the position of France's official Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique (CCNE).

In December 2012 the CCNE in France examined the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide and concluded that assisted suicide may be legalized but euthanasia must not be legalized. The CCNE report stated that euthanasia:

“a radical medical gesture” that crossed “a forbidden barrier” – and was both impractical and immoral"

On July 1, 2013 the CCNE rejected the legalization of Swiss style assisted suicide. President Hollande responded to the CCNE recommendation by stating he would legalize assisted suicide anyway.

The French Senate defeated a euthanasia bill in January 2011 by 170 to 142. 

In January 2012, national polling in France found that the majority of the French people wanted improvements to palliative care rather than legalizing euthanasia.

Paris Protest

Over the past few years, a strong opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide has been built with several of the leaders of this group becoming active in EPC - Europe.

There have also been several very successful rallies opposing euthanasia in France.

I predict that President Hollande will face significant opposition to the legalization of euthanasia and I hope that he is politically forced to back-off from his plans.

Similar article:
France ethics committee rejects assisted suicide.
France Senate defeats euthanasia bill (170 to 142).

Petition to the Belgian government - Stop euthanasia of minors!

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) Europe is supporting a petition to the Belgian government demanding that they reject the bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.

Sign the Petition (Link).

The petition, was launched by a group of students. 
The petition states in English:

Commissions of Social Affairs and Justice of the Belgian Senate are currently debating the extension of euthanasia to minors.

Faced with this situation and not having had the opportunity to express our position in a democratic vote*, we cannot remain silent and we call on the government to stop such legislation, from a culture of death that we cannot support. Indeed, the current law has already had many abuses, that have never been punished (euthanasia of minors and demented prisoner for psychological reasons, to a condition likely to be altered, without the consent Person of euthanized, etc..). These abuses are denounced by many health professionals and lawyers, in Belgium and abroad. 

At the initiative of individual students, so we call the politicians to abandon these proposed laws and provide resources in support of life, palliative care and vulnerable people in our society. 

* The programs of the political parties never referred to a change in the euthanasia law.

Link to the petition: http://www.citizengo.org/en/860-no-euthanasia-europe

Nederlands (français en bas):

De Senaatscommissies voor sociale aangelegenheden en justitie zijn momenteel aan het debatteren over een uitbreiding van de euthanasiewet voor minderjarigen.

De burgers van dit land hebben hun mening via democratische weg niet kunnen geven*. Wij vragen de regering af te zien van dit wetsvoorstel. Deze wet is een uiting van een cultuur van de dood. De huidige wetgeving opent de deur voor misbruiken. Vandaag de dag reeds wordt vaak overgegaan tot euthanasie van minderjarigen, dementerenden, gevangenen voor psychologische motieven, personen wiens gezondheidstoestand kan wijzigen en personen die niet hebben toegestemd. Dit zonder dat sancties worden getroffen. Deze misbruiken werden aangeklaagd door medici en juristen in binnen- en buitenland. 

Studenten van verschillende universiteiten van het land roepen de politieke klasse op te verzaken aan deze wetsvoorstellen. Men moet nu werk maken van nieuwe wetten voor het leven, betere palliatieve zorgen en de zwaksten in de samenleving beschermen. 

*De partij programma's hebben nooit melding gemaakt van een wijziging van de euthanasiewet.

Français (Nerdelands boven) :

Les commissions des affaires sociales et de la justice du Sénat belge débattent actuellement de l'élargissement de l'euthanasie aux mineurs.

Face à cette situation et n'ayant eu l'occasion d'exprimer notre position lors d'un vote démocratique*, nous ne pouvons nous taire et appelons le gouvernement à prendre la mesure des enjeux d'une telle législation, émanant d'une culture de mort que nous ne pouvons cautionner. En effet, la loi actuelle a déjà subi de nombreuses dérives, n'ayant jamais été sanctionnées (euthanasies de mineurs et de déments, de prisonniers pour motifs psychologiques, en vue d'un état de santé risquant d'être altéré, absence de consentement de la personne euthanasiée, etc.). Ces dérives sont dénoncées par de nombreux professionnels de la santé et du droit, en Belgique et à l'étranger. 

À l'initiative de différents étudiants, nous appelons donc la classe politique à renoncer à ces propositions de lois et à travailler à de nouvelles, en faveur de la vie, des soins palliatifs et des personnes fragiles de notre société, qui font toute sa richesse. 

*Les programmes des partis politiques n'ayant jamais fait allusion à une modification de la loi euthanasie.

Links to similar articles:
Belgian Senate committee approves doctors killing children with disabilities by euthanasia.
Belgian Senate committee to vote on bill to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities.
Belgian euthanasia promoter admits that there are problems with the euthanasia law.

Euthanasia: We can live without it.

The following article was written by Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick and published on November 27 by CNN under the title: Euthanasia: We can live without it.

Editor's note: Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick is director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe, a group dedicated to opposing the legalization of euthanasia and promoting palliative care. The opinions in this commentary are solely his.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

(CNN) -- Disabled people, elderly people, adults made vulnerable by terminal and other illnesses, and now children are being told that their lives are not worth living.

This view was forcefully expressed by Professor Etienne Vermeersch in a recent public debate on euthanasia in Brussels. One of the authors of Belgium's controversial euthanasia law, Vermeersch said it had been specifically designed to include disabled people.

For Vermeersch it seemed obvious that "a man with no arms or legs" would want to die.

Without conscience or insight into the discrimination of choosing only disabled people as examples, he shouted at a member of the audience "Just wait until you are paralysed." A paraplegic wheelchair-user for forty years, I was sitting directly in front of him, and had spoken before the debate.

His chilling and very final solution to suffering is to remove the sufferer. His zealous delivery caused a frisson in the room amongst most (though sadly not all) of the audience. With its clear echoes, this discourse from a government adviser was shocking.

Alex Schadenberg

Earlier in the same debate, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition had pointed out that the law in Belgium is just not safe:

- Nearly half (47%) of euthanasia deaths are not reported (according to a study carried out in Flanders in 2007): This is illegal. 

- Euthanasia deaths should be carried out by doctors, but according to a 2007 study, nurses are doing them: This is illegal. 

- Some euthanasia deaths are carried out without request (according to a 2007 study in Flanders): This is illegal.

The opposite view: Pray you never need euthanasia, but be glad of option

Dr. Jan Bernheim, a leading promoter of euthanasia, admitted that there are problems with Belgium's euthanasia law. But despite its "imperfections" he still believes it should be extended to children.

Bernheim argued euthanasia was necessary to remove suffering: yet pain is hardly ever the reason for seeking euthanasia. In fact, any palliative care specialist will say no-one should ever be in intolerable pain.

Bernheim claims Dr. Wim Distelmans as his protege: Distelmans recently ended the life of Nancy/Nathan Verhelst, in front of TV cameras. After a series of botched sex-change operations, in the absence of other support, Verhelst sought refuge in death by euthanasia.

The Belgian commission to regulate the practice of euthanasia has never referred a case of euthanasia to prosecutors (and remember only half of those are reported). It is co-chaired by Distelmans. It is fundamentally unsafe that the most high-profile doctor in Belgium to carry out euthanasia is also the regulator.

Distelmans also carried out the euthanasia of Mark and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old identical twins, who were deaf and decided they wanted to die after their eyesight began to fail.

Anorexic Ann G. also opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the Belgian psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for her life-threatening condition.

The core of good clinical governance is patient safety but under Belgium's euthanasia laws that is sacrificed in the name of individual choice. Verhelst, the Verbessems and Ann G. -- bereft of support -- felt they had no choice but death.

The European Social Rights Committee has condemned Belgium for violation of the European Social Charter because of its lack of social care. It is little wonder that disabled Belgian people fall into terminal despair, but that does not validate euthanasia becoming a "treatment" for depression as it has in Belgium.

Killing someone by lethal injection is ot an act of medicine: it comes when medicine apparently has nothing left to offer.

With a 500% increase in euthanasia in Belgium in ten years, it is crystal clear that the law in Belgium nis not safe; we cannot stand by as they try to extend that law to children.

The opposite view: Pray you never need euthanasia, but be glad of option

Interactive: Euthanasia and the right to die around the world

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick.

Links to similar articles:
The Great Euthanasia Debate.
Belgium euthanasia promoter admits that there are problems with the Belgian euthanasia law.