Staying Secure: A Modern Senior’s Guide to Preventing Elder Financial Abuse

By Bob Shannon - seniorsmeet.org

You’ve spent decades building security, nurturing savings, and doing things the careful way. That effort deserves protection. But the truth is, today’s threats to your finances aren’t just from strangers — they’re quieter, more familiar, and sometimes even digital ghosts wearing friendly faces. Financial abuse against seniors is on the rise, and it’s not always easy to spot. It can feel like your instincts are being tested at every turn — a new call, an unexpected email, a sudden shift in your banking. But staying vigilant doesn’t mean living in fear. It means sharpening your awareness, getting help where it counts, and putting simple safeguards between your money and anyone trying to misuse your trust.

Pay Attention to the Smallest Financial Shifts

It starts with the smallest signals. You notice a $600 ATM withdrawal you didn’t authorize. A cousin suddenly wants access to your account “just to help pay bills.” These aren’t mistakes — they’re early warnings. The best cue isn’t always a person acting badly; it’s your gut sensing that something’s off. Many victims recall noticing unexplained large withdrawals alerting their attention, but brushing it off until it was too late. Pay attention to patterns, not just people. If someone’s behavior around your finances starts to shift — more questions, more control, more secrecy — that’s not caregiving. That’s erosion. And the earlier you name it, the better you can stop it.

Protect the Files You Share Online

And don’t forget the quiet risks hiding in your inbox. Every time you email a bank statement, a will, or your Social Security info, you open a small door. That door can be locked — easily. Just use tools that walk you through the steps to password protect a PDF before sending anything sensitive. It’s not complicated. You upload the file, add a password, and send it knowing the contents are shielded. Even if someone gets into your email, the file is useless without that password. In an age where data leaks quietly, a locked PDF is your digital deadbolt.

Let Your Bank Help Spot Trouble

There’s a quiet system already working in your favor. Most banks and credit unions now follow federal guidance that allows them to spot and report suspicious activity without waiting for permission. According to a central banking agencies’ joint statement, institutions are encouraged to flag elder financial exploitation using behavior-based cues — changes in transaction frequency, sudden account access by others, or unusual cash transfers. This means your bank might see red flags even before you do. But here’s the kicker: they need your partnership. Make sure they know what’s normal for you, who you trust, and what your preferences are. These aren’t just privacy decisions — they’re defense plans.

Choose a Trusted Contact — Quiet Backup in Your Corner

Even better, you can set someone up to have your back — quietly, without giving them control. That’s where trusted contacts come in. Nearly every major financial institution now offers a simple setup that lets you designate a trusted contact mechanism. They don’t access your money. They don’t make decisions. But if something looks suspicious, your bank has someone to call who can confirm whether something’s wrong. It’s the difference between being isolated and being connected when decisions get hard. Think of it as adding a layer of alertness — one that listens even when you’re asleep.

If You Suspect Something, Speak Up

But what if something’s already happened? Maybe money’s gone. Maybe someone close crossed a line. That’s the moment where staying silent does the most damage. You don’t need proof. You don’t need all the facts. If it feels wrong, report suspected exploitation immediately. You can start with Adult Protective Services, your bank, or the U.S. Department of Justice’s Elder Justice Initiative. Reporting doesn’t mean getting someone in trouble — it means getting yourself out of it. Financial abuse isn’t always a crime scene. Sometimes it’s a pattern, a slow erosion, and calling it out is the only way to break it.

Be Wary of AI-Driven Impersonation Scams

The fraud landscape has evolved — and it’s moving faster than ever. Criminals are now using AI to mimic your loved ones’ voices, create fake emergency texts, and spoof phone calls from Medicare or Social Security. Researchers are now warning to beware AI‑powered impersonation fraud that targets older adults with alarming precision. Imagine hearing what sounds like your grandson’s voice, panicked, asking for money. It’s not a fantasy — it’s code. The best defense isn’t paranoia. It’s a pause. Always double check through a second channel. Never trust urgency. Fraudsters thrive on panic; delay is your protection.

Support Stronger Legal Defenses

The good news? The legal system is starting to shift from clean-up to prevention. In the US a new bipartisan bill aims to give banks more authority to stop fraud in progress. With new powers for banks in fraud cases, financial institutions could legally delay suspicious transactions while investigating them. This matters because right now, money can disappear in seconds — and there’s not always a legal way to pause the flow. You can support this shift by opting into fraud alerts and working with your bank to set transaction limits, especially on wire transfers. Institutions are moving from observers to defenders — let them.

No one wants to spend their later years second-guessing every phone call or email. But staying safe doesn’t mean living in fear — it means layering your defenses, asking for support, and naming the threats clearly. Whether it’s through legal tools, banking allies, or simple habits, you can protect what you’ve earned. Don’t wait for something to go wrong. Make the small changes now that stop big problems later. Trust yourself, trust your instincts, and don’t be afraid to speak up. Your money is yours — and so is your power to protect it.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to stay informed and support vital initiatives opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, and make a difference in the lives of those in need.

The feeling of being in the way and to have someone help cause my death, pervades my life

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

No assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition received the following message from Marie M, who is one of our supporters. Marie has lived most of her life in Canada but was born in the UK. She wanted UK politicians who are debating a bill to legalize assisted suicide to read her message:

"You've no idea what it is like for us who are older and have, or even haven't, health issues. I'm in my 70s and have a number of health issues. When I seek help I have the feeling that our health system, which is poor, might expect me to give "my place" to someone healthier and younger, thus taking my place out of the running for healthcare by my deciding to commit suicide; that's what I feel constantly as I walk around, realizing that I might be regarded as being "too old." When I see a doctor or have a doctor attend me or go for a test or surgery in a hospital, it's really on my mind."

This expectation for a patient to be euthanized or medically assisted to commit suicide is already happening among some healthcare workers; this opens the gates to having euthanasia/assisted suicide thrust upon any of us. This is what approving it in a country can do to an ordinary person. This feeling of being, in the way, expected to commit suicide or have someone help me to, pervades my life.

Assisted suicide is now called MAiD, a term I refuse to use; it's a euphemism for "someone helping you to commit suicide." That is what I call it.

I was born in the UK and just about all of my relatives live there, so I have visited the UK quite often."

Thank you Marie

• Canadian physician sends Open Letter to the House of Lords (UK) (Link). 
• A lawyer witnessed coercive end-of-life conversation (Link).

Should caregivers be forced to starve dementia patients to death?

This article was published by National Review online on August 5, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

First, Caplan discusses the potential withholding of feeding tubes (artificial hydration and nutrition, or AHN, in medical parlance), which is unquestionably legal because AHN is a medical treatment that involves surgery and medically prepared nutrients and — like other treatments, ranging from surgery to chemotherapy — can be ordered through advance directives to be withheld or withdrawn. Right or wrong, that’s a done deal. (He brings up the Terri Schiavo case, about which he and I significantly disagree, but let’s not relitigate that here.)

Then, however, Caplan takes the next step — which is currently on the cutting edge of bioethical discourse. From “Artificial Hydration and Nutrition in Dementia: Ethicist Weighs In”:

Is feeding by spoon the same as medical intervention with artificial forms of hydration and nutrition? I believe it is. I believe that when you say “no more food and nutrition,” it isn’t just the equipment. I’ll put it simply: It’s who’s on the end of the spoon. If nurses or doctors are feeding, it’s medical. It’s professional care, and you should be able to say no to that.

Spoon-feeding has always been considered humane care, akin to keeping patients warm, maintaining proper standards of hygiene, and turning patients to prevent bedsores. A redefinition of spoon-feeding, it seems to me, would be a radical change in medical ethics. Should a nurse’s cleaning a patient, for example, also now be considered a medical treatment? I can’t imagine it.

Spoon-feeding isn’t a medical procedure. It doesn’t take a medical professional’s education or training to do it. Food and liquids aren’t medicine. We are talking about canned peaches, cottage cheese, soup, or eggs. We are talking about water, juice, tea, and coffee. Good grief, I spoon-fed my mother when she was dying of Alzheimer’s, and it didn’t take any special skill or training on my part. Should I have been charged with practicing medicine or nursing without a license?

Next, Caplan believes that the desires of the once-competent person should rule, even if the now-incompetent person willingly eats:

I do think if someone says “I don’t want to eat or drink anymore,” their intent and their values are clear. You could certainly rediscuss it with the family and say she seems to be accepting food and swallowing, and ask if that changes their mind or makes them think she might have decided differently.

However, I think the wishes of the competent person, when they made the living will, are what should drive care if the person loses competency. They thought about it, they knew where they were headed, and I do think that’s the value that ought to dominate thinking about whether we have to continue to try food and water for nutrition.

Let’s think about this deeply. Wouldn’t this dehumanize the now-incompetent person by making him or her less than equal? And wouldn’t this be a real “gotcha,” because once a person became incompetent, then even in non-medical cases — many dementia patients really enjoy eating; Mom sure did — their desires and joys would matter not a whit?

We sure push hastened death these days. We have widespread legalization of assisted suicide. We have VSED — whereby doctors help people starve themselves to death. We have VSED “as a bridge” to assisted suicide/euthanasia, by weakening a patient so that he or she can qualify for hastened death. We have proposals to intentionally malnourish dementia patients, who desired it when competent, so that they die slowly over time. And now, a very influential bioethicist supports forcing caregivers to cause death by dehydration and starvation, even when a patient willingly eats.

Before we go down this road, shouldn’t we ask ourselves: Aren’t there some actions that we don’t have a right to demand from others? If so, isn’t starving and dehydrating a helpless patient who willingly eats — and who could even be asking for food — one such action?

If you did such a thing to a dog, you would go to jail. When will we say, “Enough: This is too much to ask”?

Previous articles by or concerning Wesley Smith (Link).

Elder suicide in Switzerland has quadrupled in 25 years.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Swissinfo reported on July 10, 2025 that the elder suicide rate has quadrupled over the past 25 years. The data is upsetting but it should not surprise people considering that society has been telling the elderly that they are better off dead.

It is important to note that the Swiss suicide rates for people under the age of 65 have gone down over the past 25 years while the suicide rate for people from 65 to 84 has increased significantly and the suicide rate for people over the age of 85 has quadrupled.

Swissinfo reported:

Senior citizens were 42 times more likely to take their own lives in 2023 than people in other age groups, according to Swiss public broadcaster, RTS.

And the numbers are increasing: in the past 25 years, the proportion of over 85-year-olds in Switzerland who decide to take their life has quadrupled. Among 65- to 84-year-olds, this proportion has doubled.

In contrast, the suicide rate among the younger population has fallen by around 30% in the past two decades.

The increased suicide rate, in Switzerland, appears to be related to the acceptance of assisted suicide. Swissinfo reported on the question of whether suicide is linked to assisted suicide:

There is controversy among experts as to whether assisted suicides and unassisted suicides can be linked at all.

According to Pierre Vandel, head physician at Lausanne University Hospital, “it is possible to opt for assisted suicide without having suicidal thoughts”. However, he explains that some of his colleagues make no distinction in this respect.

Euthanasia organisations take a different view. “Conscious suicides are different from others,” says Jean-Jacques Bise, Co-President of Exit in French-speaking Switzerland.

The figures from RTS suggest that the two types of suicide could be linked. In very old people, the statistical curves of the two types of suicide cross at the beginning of the 2010s, an indication that from then on there was a shift from unaccompanied to accompanied suicides.

The article examined the differences between men and women. The article states:

The figures also show that there are stark differences between men and women. Until the early 2010s, women took their own lives much less frequently than men.

Since then, the number of assisted suicides has also risen sharply among women, and women almost exclusively end their lives in this way of their own accord. In contrast, there is still a comparatively high proportion of unassisted suicides among men.

“Men express their feelings less than women,” explains psychiatrist Pierre Vandel. That is why it is more difficult for them to recognise suicidal thoughts and help them in time. This explains the tendency of men to take their own lives more often without support.

In America, a similar phenomenon has occurred. Like Switzerland the highest suicide rate in America is among the elderly. Similar to Switzerland, the suicide rate among the elderly was much lower in the past. There is significant proof that the suicide rate in Oregon is directly connected to the acceptance of assisted suicide.

There have been several studies that have examined the connection between suicide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Most studies suggest that suicide rates increases when assisted suicide and euthanasia are normalized.

More articles on this topic:

• Suicide deaths increasing in America. Elderly Americans now have the highest suicide rate (Link).
• US suicide rates are now highest among the elderly (Link).
• Suicide contagion (Link).
• Legalizing assisted dying can actually increase suicides (Link). 
• Suicide rates in jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide are not decreasing (Link).
  

Assisted suicide discriminates against people with disabilities

This article was published by the Cape Gazette on May 23, 2023.

By Daniese McMullin-Powell

Assisted suicide is a dangerous public policy that threatens the most vulnerable in society, especially people like me – people with disabilities. Upon initial consideration, many do not see how assisted suicide is particularly dangerous to the disability community. However, based on the weakening of the already-flimsy safeguards that is going on in other states that allow the deadly practice, the danger of abuse in assisted-suicide laws is real. I urge the Delaware Legislature to take a hard look at the facts of assisted suicide and to propose laws that help address the reasons people seek assisted suicide in the first place.

Assisted-suicide laws are inherently discriminatory and target people with disabilities. These laws lead to abuse and harm because the so-called safeguards within assisted-suicide laws are weak. According to a study published by the National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency, the safeguards in assisted-suicide laws are ineffective, and oversight of abuses and mistakes is absent. People with disabilities already face an uphill battle trying to receive fair treatment in a society that equates functionality with worth. It makes no sense to add to the disability community’s list of worries by legalizing a practice that would inevitably lead to abuse.

Alarmingly, in Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal the longest, the safeguards that proponents used to pass assisted-suicide legislation are now being weakened and characterized as barriers. Originally, Oregon had a 15-day waiting period in its law, which was valuable because it gave patients time to reflect and seek a second medical opinion. After all, assisted suicide is not a reversible decision. However, in 2020, Oregon removed the 15-day waiting period for patients whose physicians believed they would die before the end of the 15-day waiting period. Last year, 20% of patients received the waiver, and some even died on the same day that they requested assisted suicide. This same-day suicide assistance doesn’t give patients time to seek a second opinion, or even to change their minds. Once legalized, there is always a push to make suicide more accessible. In truth, there are no safeguards that could adequately protect vulnerable people from abuse and harm due to assisted suicide. Even so, to remove existing safeguards, no matter how flimsy, would be foolish.

Assisted-suicide policy fails to address the primary reasons that drive people to seek it in the first place. Proponents claim that people seek assisted suicide to avoid unbearable pain at the end of life. However, this is simply untrue. According to data from Oregon, people most often cite disability-related concerns as their reason for seeking assisted suicide. Their top reasons include loss of autonomy, decreasing ability to participate in life activities and loss of dignity. These are serious concerns that people in the disability community live with every day. Instead of legalizing assisted suicide, society should focus on educating, and removing the stigma surrounding disability. We should focus on providing better care because the above concerns are all treatable with appropriate, multi-disciplinary care. If legalized, assisted suicide sends the wrong message to people with disabilities: You’re better off dead than alive.

As a result, assisted suicide is a deadly public policy that puts people with disabilities at greater risk for abuse and harm. The so-called safeguards in assisted suicide laws are flimsy at best and have been found ineffective at protecting patients from abuse. In states where assisted suicide is already legal, there are incremental steps being made to lessen what little safeguards are in place. At the end of the day, this confirms what we’ve always known: Assisted suicide is about fear of disability. I want to encourage our Delaware Legislature to educate the public and reduce the stigma around disability. The people of Delaware deserve quality medical care and supports at all stages of life, not a premature death.

Daniese McMullin-Powell is a disability advocate who lives in Newark

Death by dehydration was 'Inhumane, awful and barbaric'

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Steve Bagnall published by the North Wales News on March 21 concerns the death of Sarene Taylor (88) from North Wales (UK) who was starved and dehydrated to death over 28 days.

Bagnall interviewed Rob Taylor, the son of Sarane, and then reports:

Readers have been left shocked and appalled at how end of life care is handled in some cases, after an 88-year-old woman was left without food and water for 28 days before she died. The devastating story of Sarene Taylor, was brought to the public by her heartbroken son Rob Taylor, a decorated and highly respected former North Wales rural police officer.

He told how his mum suffered a stroke and was taken to a North Wales hospital more than four weeks ago. Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for her and she was sent back to die in a care home after foods and fluids were withdrawn.

However it took his beloved mum 28 days before she finally passed away yesterday (Monday). Mr Taylor said the approach to end of life care was "inhumane" and "heartbreaking" for the family and had to change.

Bagnall reports Mr Taylor saying in a statement:

"I understand end of life care, and the carers and district nurses do a fantastic job but to deny a human being food and water is disgraceful and we as a society need to ensure that this doesn't happen again."

Rob Taylor, a respected, retired police officer, is absolutely correct. His mother died by dehydration over 28 days. Therefore Sarene was not actually dying after her stroke. Her body was not shutting down and she was not near to death. If her body was actually dying, her death would have come within days, not four weeks.

Sarene Taylor was killed by dehydration, not because there was nothing that they could do for her, but because they decided not to do anything for her, since they believed that she was unlikely to improve.

The story resulted in many readers of the North Wales News commenting that this is a strong case for legalizing euthanasia. This was a woman who died from neglect and intentional dehydration. This is elder abuse.

Further to that, according to the story, Sarene Taylor was not capable of consenting to be killed by euthanasia. The response of the readers shows you how dangerous it is to legalize euthanasia, since people will demand death for someone who cannot consent to be killed.

This is a inhumane, awful and barbaric story of "lack of care." This form of elder abuse should never happen and yet it is somewhat common.

Everyone needs to purchase the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care to protect them from such a barbaric death. (Purchase the Power of Attorney)

Hospice abuse undermines opposition to assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Ava Kofman that was published by Propublica on January 20, 2023 reports on the need for Hospice Reform.

For more than 20 years I have opposed assisted suicide and supported good end-of-life care. I do not view hospice as an alternative to assisted suicide but I agree that good end-of-life care reduces the demand for assisted suicide.

I also recognize that hospice abuse undermines opposition to assisted suicide.

Kofman's article - Pressure Mounts for Hospice Reform, focuses on the financial abuse in the hospice industry.

Last week, the four largest hospice trade associations jointly sent a detailed memo of policy proposals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which regulates the end-of-life care benefit. Their 34 recommendations, which span eight pages, directly address the alarming business practices outlined by a recent ProPublica-New Yorker investigation.

Dr. Diane Meier

Kofman quotes Diane Meier, a long-time palliative care leader who stated:

“The New Yorker-ProPublica investigation shook the industry to its foundation,” said Dr. Diane Meier, a geriatrician at New York’s Mount Sinai hospital and a leading authority on palliative care. “You have four major industry groups coming together, as they don’t always do, on a series of significant policy and regulatory changes for hospice. This suggests — contrary to public messages about this being just a few bad actors — that it’s not just a few bad actors. There are systemic problems with the lack of oversight and the profit motive.”

Kofman then reports:

Industry leaders are not the only bloc pressuring CMS for greater hospice oversight. Senators and government watchdog agencies are also pushing the agency for concrete changes. Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report asking that hospices be required to report observations of abuse and neglect, regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator works at the hospice. MedPAC, the congressional advisory panel on Medicare spending, has again endorsed modifying the hospice payment structure to reduce part of the financial incentive for enrolling ineligible patients. And in late December, the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services announced that curbing the abuse of hospice patients was among its top unimplemented recommendations.

Let's be clear. Everyone deserves excellent end-of-life care but unless the hospice industry is cleaned up, there will be a greater push for assisted suicide. Kofman reports:

Among its proposals, the memo discusses the need to rein in predatory marketing schemes. ProPublica’s reporting found that profit-seeking providers can take advantage of the fact that many people don’t know what hospice is to recruit new patients who are not dying. Some hospice marketers — known in the industry as “community liaisons” or “community educators” — aggressively solicit new patients with promises of free housekeeping and trips to the beach and casino. Others treat physicians to cash bounties and bottle service at Las Vegas nightclubs to gin up referrals. The groups ask that CMS update its regulations to require hospices to develop policies on “ethical marketing practices.” (Such policies, they note, must prohibit kickbacks, disclose bonuses to marketers and mandate that hospices clearly explain the benefit to patients.)

ProPublica’s investigation pointed out that practically anyone can open a hospice. I came across hospices owned by vacation-rental superhosts, a man convicted of drug distribution and a criminal-defense attorney (who once represented a hospice employee convicted of fraud and was later investigated for hospice fraud himself). The trade associations have asked CMS to prohibit individuals with convictions for certain crimes from operating hospices and to require training and background checks for hospice administrators, noting that “unqualified or risky hospice leadership” could lead to fraud or poor quality of care.

Kofman reports that hospices are being bought up by private equity firms.

It’s hard to require that hospice owners have appropriate qualifications, however, if the identity of those owners remains unknown. As private equity firms acquire an ever-greater share of the hospice market, many families have no way of untangling who actually operates their provider. This lack of transparency, the trade groups write, “makes accountability for poor performance difficult and makes it harder for patients and families to choose quality providers.” At the moment, it’s easier to research a hotel for your honeymoon than it is to research the hospice that will care for your loved one. But it doesn’t have to be this way: CMS could make hospices disclose their owners and major investors, the groups say. It could also revamp its Care Compare website — a sort of TripAdvisor for end-of-life care consumers — to prioritize quality metrics and make its data more accessible. In response to questions from a groundswell of readers in the wake of its reporting, ProPublica published a guide to help families research their provider and spot common signs of fraud. The trade groups propose that similar information be incorporated into the official Medicare handbook for hospice consumers.

The article concludes by stating that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) already have the power and the suggestions for reforming the hospice industry.

EPC - USA opposed the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA) for several reasons. The first was related to this article, the abuse of hospice. The second reason was that the definitions in the act did not prevent assisted suicide groups from accessing the money.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's interest in this area stems from the fact that people who seek death by assisted suicide are often trying to avoid a bad death. When someone experience hospice abuse, as they approach life's end, it undermines our opposition to assisted suicide.

Ontario Family Reeling from Loss of Love One.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ontario Family Reeling from Loss of Loved One: 

When the Medical Community Abandons Power of Attorneys (POA) and Substitute Decision Makers (SDM), the Fallout Affects Us All

[Toronto, Ontario. December 24th, 2022] 

On June 4th 2022, Nicola Angelo Marchione, a Guelph resident, died shortly after his feeding tube was removed, without his or his decision maker/POA’s consent at a hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. Mr Marchione dialysis was removed earlier the same day, also without his or his family or decision maker’s (POA’s) consent. Multiple requests for Mr Marchione’s medical records, and information concerning why informed consent was not obtained from either him nor his POA, were never responded to, nor any information or answers provided since.

Following multiple visits to a hospital in Fergus, Ontario, from January to May 2022, due to shortness of breath, followed by medical issues related primarily to the change of his medications and side effects from these, Mr Marchione was admitted to hospital in March for feelings of increasing heart rate after a medication was stopped cold turkey. He was given a new medication called Amiodarone, a drug which has substantial and significant side effects, none of which were disclosed to Mr Marchione upon admission, nor to the family. After concerns over the effects of the medication, numerous attempts to speak to the specialist who prescribed it were made, however all contact and efforts were ignored. In May, Mr Marchione returned to the hospital with symptoms of his leg feeling weak, this was his final readmission there, only this time he would leave that hospital with septic shock and renal failure. 

Abandonment of a patient, neglect, lack of informed consent, ageism, elder abuse, etc., these are the matters under investigation in Mr Marchione’s death. Why were this man’s concerns or his family concerns never addressed? Why should citizens have advance Power of Attorney established only to be overruled by the doctor on call or medical specialist in charge? This case has too many unanswered questions. It has become apparent that the nurses and medical team resonsible are not responding to valid concerns or requests for information. This matter has been escalated to the Directors of both hospitals, Patient Ombusdman, Chief Coroner’s Office, and local Police athorities for active investigation.  

This is the lasting memory that Nicola Marchione’s family has of him: Unattended, abandoned to his medications, pulling at a Kleenex box in a state of shock and unrest while at the hospital prior to transfer. His final words to his family were, “I’m having trouble breathing, I think I’m going to die.” He was clearly experiencing distress. Mr Marchione’s family deserve closure: His spouse and children deserve answers, and the larger public community and concerned citizens deserve answers and those responsible need to be held accountable.

To speak to the Marchione family for comment in relation to this case and its details, please contact Angela Marchione-Faragher at 519-831-4377 or email: angiefilms@yahoo.ca for interviews and comments. Additionally, media inquiries can be made to Kathy Matusiak Costa at 519-439-6445 or email info@beingwith.org

New Report On Elder Abuse In Australia: Implications For Euthanasia.

This article was published by the Australian Care Alliance on January 12, 2022.

A new report on elder abuse in Australia by L. Qu and colleagues - National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study: Final Report - released in December 2021 points to the prevalence of elder abuse and explains some of the risk factors and the common characteristics of perpetrators.

This information needs to inform any discussion of the risks to elderly people of legalising euthanasia and assistance to suicide, including risks arising from inheritance impatient adult children; psychological and physical abuse from adult children and intimate partners; social isolation and loneliness; failure to report abuse to professionals, including GPs; and the ineffective responses even when abuse is reported to professionals.

Proponents of legalised euthanasia or assistance to suicide who dismiss the risk of elder abuse in this context are naïve, disingenuous or simply so focused on demanding their “right to die” that they are prepared to ignore this risk.

As Dr Henry Marsh, a British neurosurgeon and proponent of legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia, has said "Even if a few grannies get bullied into [suicide], isn’t that the price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?"

Relevantly, this report found that:

The estimate for the prevalence of elder abuse among community dwelling people aged 65 and older in Australia is 14.8%, based on findings from the SOP. This estimate is based on experiences reported in the past year in the survey. The most common form of abuse is psychological abuse (11.7%). Neglect is the next most common abuse subtype at 2.9%. For the other subtypes, prevalence rates are 2.1% for financial abuse, 1.8% for physical abuse and 1% for sexual abuse. (page 2)

Each of these abuse types is relevant for assessing the safety of a law that allows a lethal poison to be prescribed and suppled to an elderly person to be used to end the person's life.

Adult children were most likely to commit financial, physical, and psychological abuse. Sons were almost twice as likely as daughters to commit financial abuse. Adult children were on par with intimate partners as perpetrators of neglect. Intimate partners also featured commonly as perpetrators of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.

perpetrators were reported to have … and financial problems (nearly one in five). The most common problems associated with financial abuse were financial problems.

Inheritance impatience was a characteristic of 19.1% of abusers in Queensland in 2018/19. (page 2)

Elderly people prescribed and supplied with a lethal poison may be at risk from adult children and intimate partners perpetrating financial, physical and psychological abuse – including seeking to hasten the death of the person for financial benefit; bullying or nagging the person to ingest the poison; physically forcing the person to ingest the poison.

Most laws (including all such laws in Australia and the United States) permitting assistance to suicide provide no protections whatsoever once the lethal poison is prescribed and supplied.

people with poorer health were more likely than those with better health to report experiencing elder abuse. Having a disability was associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing elder abuse. Low social support and lack of social contact were associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing elder abuse (page 2)

There is a correlation between all abuse subtypes and low social support (including social isolation and loneliness). (page 61)

A low sense of social support is the highest risk factor for physical abuse (30.4%) and the second highest risk factor for financial abuse (29.8%). (page 66)

There is also a correlation between isolation and loneliness and requests for euthanasia. For example, the Sixth annual report for Quebec reported that for April 2020-March 2021, 24% of people gave as a reason for wishing to have their life ended by a lethal injection experiencing “isolation or loneliness”.

Where older people sought professional help, they were more likely to turn to the helping professions, medical professionals such as GPs and nurses … Notably, of those older people who reported taking action, substantial minorities considered these actions were ineffective. Responses indicating actions were ineffective were highest for financial abuse (over one third) (page 3)

This confirms the concern that there is no guarantee that medical practitioners assessing those who request euthanasia or assistance to suicide for "voluntariness" will adequately identify or respond to the presence of, or the risk of, financial, psychological or physical abuse playing a role in a person’s request for a lethal poison to end their life or the actual ingestion of such a poison if prescribed and supplied for self-administration.

For example, the section of the mandatory training in Victoria for participating medical practitioners dealing with assessing voluntariness, including the absence of coercion takes just over 5 minutes to complete including a 2 minute 20 second video and slides which take a further 2 minutes 50 seconds to read.

Given what this latest report on elder abuse confirms about its prevalence and the failure of professionals including GPs and other health professionals to adequately identify and respond to it there are no grounds for assuming that the provisions of any law permitting euthanasia or assistance to suicide are adequate to prevent wrongful deaths by elder abuse by pressure to request or ingest a lethal poison.

Simply chanting “choice” as a mantra does not address this real and substantive risk of lethal elder abuse.