Euthanasia proposal dies when France calls election.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex speaking at the European Parliament

I rarely provide political commentary, but elections have consequences.

The European Parliament held their elections from June 6 to June 9, 2024 resulting in a shift in the balance of power. It appears that the European Parliament will likely have more of a  conservative focus over the next few years.

In response to the European election results and the shift in european politics, French President, Emmanuel Macron, on June 10 called a snap election with his hope of catching conservative political parties off-guard. The election will be on June 29 - 30 and the second tier on July 6 - 7.

For those who oppose euthanasia, France's euthanasia proposal has technically died with the snap election. After the election the euthanasia proposal will need to be re-introduced. If Macron loses support, it is unlikely that the euthanasia proposal will immediately return.

A similar situation exists in the UK where Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called a snap election for July 4. The difference is that Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, is leading in the polls and Starmer has promised that if elected his party would legalize assisted suicide.

Clearly elections have consequences.

As I reported on June 11, as part of the European Union election there was a Slovenian referendum on the question ‘Are you in favour of adopting a law that will regulate the right to assistance in the voluntary end of life?’ that passed with 55% in favour and 45% against. The vote is non-binding, but has support from three political parties who proposed the referendum.

Euthanasia has become a significant political issue.

The only "good" that is coming from Canada's disasterous euthanasia law is that it is a warning to the rest of the world not to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Hungary's government opposes assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dániel Karsai, an Hungarian who lives with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought a case to European Court of Human Rights this week to challenge Hungary's laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Daily News Hungary reported on November 29, 2023 that the Hungarian government intervened in the case by opposing any changes to their laws. According to Daily News Hungary the Hungarian Justice Ministry told the European Court of Human Rights that:

The ministry said Hungary considered "unacceptable" all decisions and aspirations which "enable others to end a person's life".

The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary's constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary's constitution nor international law, including the ECHR guarantee the right to die, it argued.

The Karsai case has been promoted by the euthanasia lobby and at least one assisted suicide group in Switzerland.

Previous article: Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court (Link).

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

Brussels Symposium (November 16): Euthanasia and assisted suicide world-wide

Attend the Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Worldwide at the European Parliament in Brussels on Wednesday November 16 from (9:30 am to 4:30 pm). 

No cost to attend. (Registration link)

Watch online at no cost (Live link). The link will be live during the Symposium (Brussels time).

Schedule: 

9:30-10:00 Registration (Registration link)

10:00-10:10 Welcome

10:10-10:30 Comparing the euthanasia regimes Internationally
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Canada

10:30-10:50 Euthanasia and the care professional
Dr. Manuel Martinez-Selles; President of the Spanish College of Physicians

10:50-11:10 The secular case against assisted suicide.
Prof. Kevin Yuill; professor of history at the University of Sunderland, England

11:10-11:30 Coffee break

11:30-11:50 A new holistic-evolutive approach to pediatric palliative care.
Carlo Belleini. Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of Siena.

11:50-12:00 Care for children with life-threatening illness and their families in children hospices. Helmund Geuking, Member of the European Parliament (Group of the European People's Party (Familien-Partei Deutschlands). Online contribution

12:00-12:10 Considerations regarding euthanasia and palliative care.
Bert-Jan Ruissen, Member of the European Parliament (European Conservatives and Reformists Group). Online contribution.

12:10-12:30 Euthanasia in Belgium; How the slippery slope is turning into reality.
Dr. Leopold van Bellingen, lawyer at the European Institute of Bioethics.

12:30-12:50 Legalizing Euthanasia: What we can learn from the Netherlands: a case study of a slippery slope
Leo van Doesburg, Director for European Affairs for the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM)

12:50-13:10 Euthanasia law and practical guidelines and protocols.
Tista Bobbink-Kaper, President of the Dutch association of lawyers defending life. (JPV).

13:10-13:40 Panel discussion with speakers

13:40-15:00 Lunch

15:00-15:20 A doctor’s personal experience who opposes euthanasia
Dr Paul Saba, family physician in Canada and founder of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice (Quebec, Canada)

15:20-15:40 Assisted suicide in America. Catherine Glenn Foster.

15:40-16: 10 Panel discussion with the speakers

16:05- 16:35 General Conclusions

Watch online at no cost (Live link).

Court rules that the euthanasia of a depressed woman in Belgium violated Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tom Mortier

Those who follow the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will remember the story of Tom Mortier whose mother Godelieva de Troyer died by euthanasia based on "untreatable depression" in Belgium in 2012. 

In November 2017 Mortier applied to the European Court of Human Rights and in January 2019, they agreed to hear the case. Mortier was arguing that his mother's euthanasia death contravened Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Mortier was represented by Robert Clarke with Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF).

On October 4, 2022, ADF announced that the European Court of Human Rights "ruled in favour of Tom Mortier, son of Godelieva de Troyer, who died by lethal injection in 2012, aged 64. Her euthanasia was conducted on the basis of a diagnosis of “incurable depression”. In the case of Mortier v. Belgium, the Court found that Belgium violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to properly examine the alarming circumstances leading to her euthanasia."

Godelieva de Troyer

This is great news as it is the first time that a major European court has decided that the Belgium euthanasia protocols contravene Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In their media release ADF stated:

The Court held that there was a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. This judgment was with regard to the way in which the facts surrounding de Troyer’s euthanasia were handled by Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia and the promptness of a criminal trial following de Troyer’s death. It did not, however, rule that there was any violation of Belgium’s legislative framework for the practice of euthanasia.

Per the Court, “taking into account the crucial role played by the Commission in the a posteriori control of euthanasia, the Court considers that the control system established in the present case did not ensure its independence”. It thus found that Belgium failed to fulfil its positive procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention both because of the lack of independence of the Commission and due to lack of promptness of the criminal investigation. The holdings that there was no violation of Belgium’s legislative framework and no violation of Article 2 for the conditions of the euthanasia were five votes to two.

The ADF media release explained the case.

The facts of the case highlight the myriad dangers that arise when euthanasia is legalized, and make clear that even legal ‘safeguards’ are not sufficient to protect the right to life when the practice of intentionally ending a life is available under the law. 

In this case, Tom’s mother was able to approach the country’s leading euthanasia advocate who, despite being a cancer specialist, ultimately agreed to euthanize her. Over a period of just a few months, she made a financial payment to his organization and was referred by him to see other doctors who were also part of the same association despite a requirement for independent opinions in the case of individuals not expected to die soon. The same doctor that euthanized her is also co-chair of the Federal Commission charged with approving euthanasia cases after the fact, including this one, demonstrating a clear conflict of interest. Despite Belgium euthanizing an average of seven people per day, the Commission has only ever referred one case for further investigation.

“The big problem in our society is that apparently, we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other”

The ADF media release continued:

Euthanasia in Belgium has been legal since 2002. The law specifies that the person must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident”.

Mr. Mortier’s mother was physically healthy, and her treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years doubted that she satisfied the requirements of the Belgian euthanasia law. Neither the oncologist who administered the injection nor the hospital informed him that she was even considering euthanasia. Mr. Mortier found out the day after she was euthanized when the hospital asked him to make the necessary arrangements.

Tom Mortier stated in the media release:

“My mother suffered from severe mental difficulties, and coped with depression throughout her life. She was treated for years by psychiatrists, and sadly, she and I lost contact for some time. It was during this time that she died by way of lethal injection. Never could I have imagined that we would be parted forever.”

“This marks the close of this terrible chapter, and while nothing can alleviate the pain of losing my mother, my hope is that the ruling from the Court that there was indeed a violation of the right to life puts the world on notice as to the immense harm euthanasia inflicts on not just people in vulnerable situations contemplating ending their lives, but also their families, and ultimately society”.

Robert Clarke, the ADF lawyer who represented Mortier stated why this is a positive precedent setting decision:

“This ruling serves as stark reminder. It is clear that the so-called ‘safeguards’ failed because intentional killing can never be safe. We must be unfailing in our commitment to advocating for the right to life and the truth that people have inherent dignity no matter their age or health condition”

More articles about Tom Mortier's case:

• Belgian law violated by killing depressed woman with euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia in Belgium. A son's story (Link)
• Europe's top human rights court will hear case of depressed Belgian woman who died by euthanasia (Link).
• Depressed mother died by euthanasia, her son challenges the law (Link).
• Belgian euthanasia promoters attack man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia (Link).

Europe’s top human rights court to rule on landmark euthanasia case.

Link to the ADF Press Release

 

STRASBOURG (2 October 2022) – On TUESDAY 4 OCTOBER 2022, the European Court of Human Rights is set to rule on landmark euthanasia case Tom Mortier v. Belgium. Tom Mortier, son of Godelieva de Troyer, brought the case after his mother was put to death by lethal injection in 2012, aged 64. Mortier claims that Belgium violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to properly protect the right to life of his mother -especially in light of the circumstances surrounding her death.

“My mother suffered from severe mental difficulties, and coped with depression throughout her life. She was treated for years by psychiatrists, and sadly, she and I lost contact for some time. It was during this time that she died by way of lethal injection. Never could I have imagined that we would be parted forever,” said Tom Mortier.

“The big problem in our society is that apparently we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other,” Mortier continued.

The insufficiency of “safeguards”

The case highlights the dangers of legalising euthanasia, and demonstrates that so-called ‘safeguards’ cannot make safe the practice of intentionally ending a life.

“We welcome the decision of the Court to hear this important case on the right to life – particularly as it relates to the most vulnerable in society. International law has never established a so-called ‘right to die.’ On the contrary, it solidly affirms the right to life – particularly for the most vulnerable among us. A look at the sad facts of this case exposes the lie that euthanasia is good for individuals, families, or society,” said Robert Clarke, ADF International Deputy Director, who represents Tom Mortier before the Court.

Tom Mortier’s mother, who suffered from depression, had approached the country’s leading euthanasia advocate who, despite being a cancer specialist, ultimately agreed to euthanize her.

Over a period of just a few months, de Troyer made a financial payment to the euthanasia advocate’s organization. She was referred by him to see other doctors who were also part of the same association, despite a requirement for independent opinions in the case of individuals not expected to die soon. The same doctor that euthanized her is also co-chair of the Federal Commission charged with approving euthanasia cases after the fact.

Prior to her death by euthanasia, neither her son Tom Mortier nor any family member was consulted. According to the oncologist who administered the lethal injection to his mother, her diagnosis was ‘untreatable depression’.

Despite Belgium now euthanizing an average of seven people per day, the Commission has only ever referred one case for further investigation.

Belgium’s “Slippery Slope”

Euthanasia in Belgium has been legal since 2002. The law specifies that the person must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident”.

Over 27,000 people have died from euthanasia in Belgium since it was legalised 20 years ago on 28th May 2002, according to the latest official data from Belgian authorities.

Mortier’s mother was physically healthy, and her treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years doubted that she satisfied the requirements of the Belgian euthanasia law. Neither the oncologist who administered the injection nor the hospital informed him that she was even considering euthanasia. Mr. Mortier found out the day after she was euthanized when the hospital asked him to make the necessary arrangements.

More articles about Tom Mortier's case:

• Belgian law violated by killing depressed woman with euthanasia (Link).
• Euthanasia in Belgium. A son's story (Link)
• Europe's top human rights court will hear case of depressed Belgian woman who died by euthanasia (Link).
• Depressed mother died by euthanasia, her son challenges the law (Link).
• Belgian euthanasia promoters attack man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia (Link).

Danish doctor assisted suicide conviction upheld.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Danish physician who was convicted in 2018 of assisting the suicide of two people and assisting another attempted suicide lost his attempt to overturn his conviction at the European Court of Human Rights.

An article by Molly Quell published by the Courthouse News Service on April 12, 2022 stated that the European Court of Human Rights found that Svend Lings’ 2018 conviction for medically assisted suicide didn’t violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Quell reported:

Lings, the former chief physician at Odense University Hospital in southern Denmark, was given a 40-day prison sentence in 2018, later increased to 60 days, for helping two people die and a third person attempt suicide. The 81-year-old, now-retired physician founded Læger for Aktiv Dødshjælp, or Physicians in Favour of Euthanasia, in 2015, which advocates for legalizing assisted suicide in Denmark.

Following a 2017 radio interview, in which he described how his organization had helped at least 10 people take their own lives, his medical license was revoked and, after further investigation, he was ultimately charged for his involvement in three suicides or attempted suicides.

Quell explains that Lings appealed to the European Convention on Human Rights after losing at the Denmark Supreme Court.

Lings argued before the court in Denmark, as well as before the ECHR, that he had merely been disseminating information about suicide. After his final appeal failed before the Danish Supreme Court, he complained to the ECHR, arguing that under the right to expression, guaranteed by the convention which created the court in 1959, what he did should not be considered illegal.

The seven-judge panel disagreed, writing that Lings “had not only provided guidance, but had also, by specific acts, procured medications for the persons concerned, in the knowledge that it was intended for their suicide.” It was clear, the court wrote, that he had gone beyond simply providing general information about suicide.

Similar to other euthanasia activists, Ling openly challenged the law. He likely hoped that his actions would result in an acquittal, thus striking down the law, instead the Denmark and European courts have upheld his conviction.

Czech government rejects euthanasia bill again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Straka Academy

On July 27, 2020 the Czech Republic government rejected euthanasia for the third time. According to an article published by BRNO Daily news:

On July 27th, the Czech government blocked another parliamentary effort to legalise euthanasia... The bill was proposed by a group of deputies from ANO and the Pirate Party including Věra Prochazkova (ANO) and Lukáš Bartoň (Piráti). The proposal was submitted by the Ministry of Justice and Chairwoman of the Legislative Council. 

In Czech Republic, euthanasia is classed as murder. The deputies proposed a legal framework for the legalisation of assisted suicide for adult patients with terminal conditions due to injury or illness who do not wish to undergo palliative care, provided they made the decision themselves, voluntarily and without coercion... Prochazkova, the main proponent of the bill, said that she was influenced by her personal experience, and by the similar law passed in the Netherlands in 2002.

The BRNO Daily news article stated that opposition to euthanasia was based on the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Critics have argued that the bill is inconsistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that everyone has the right to life and to not be deprived of their life. The Ministry of Social Affairs said that the proposed bill did not contain enough safeguards against human error or infringement of the law.

President Milos Zeman

Czech Republic President Milos Zeman stated in 2019 that if euthanasia were passed, he would veto the bill.

In 2016, the last time the Czech Republic rejected euthanasia, the Prague Daily Monitor published comments on Twitter by Deputy PM Pavel Belobradek (KDU-CSL) and Industry and Trade Minister Jan Mladek (CSSD):

"The bill, if passed, could result in the killing of people," Mladek wrote. 

Agriculture Minister Marian Jurecka (KDU-CSL) wrote that he rejects a simple solution of euthanasia. "I support help, loving care, solidarity and a high-level palliative care, this is a solution,"

The Prague Daily Monitor reported:

The government... believes that it is unsuitable for the Czech Republic to follow the example of the countries where euthanasia is legal, which the authors of the bill suggest. 

"In these countries, cases of clear misuse of euthanasia have been proved, aimed to vacate hospital beds, as well as cases of family members pushing for euthanasia for dubious reasons, and also unpunished cases of the failure to observe the conditions set by law," 

A similar bill on euthanasia, submitted by a senator, was turned down by the Czech upper house in 2008.

The Czech government needs to focus on caring for people and continue to reject killing people.

Euthanasia declaration fails at European parliament.

By Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International Chair

European Parliament

A declaration at the European Parliament that supported euthanasia failed to garner support.

The Declaration on the dignity at the end of life was signed by 95 MEP's in three months. The declaration that was sponsored by Elena Valenciano from Spain, required the support of 751 MEP's.

The Declaration called on the European Commission and the Council to identify best practices across the European Union with regard to the provision of end-of-life health services and to facilitate the exchange of those practices between EU countries, which appears innocuous except that the declaration also supported euthanasia by stating that the right to life also constitutes a right to die.

French court decision enables Vincent Lambert to receive food and water.

Vincent Lambert

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A French court decided to enable Vincent Lambert to continue to live. The court decision supported the position of Lambert's parents, was that Lambert would continue to receive food and water. Lambert's wife wanted feeding to cease which would cause him to die by dehydration.

Lambert has been living with a significant cognitive disability since his motorcycle accident in 2008.

Vincent Lambert's mother

According to the RFI news, the judges said:

Lambert's doctors were within their rights, based on their "professional and moral independence," to suspend an earlier court decision that would have seen them cut the intravenous food and water keeping him alive. 

...the decision to stop intravenous feeding can be undertaken "solely by the doctor in charge of care." The hospital may not oppose it. 

The judges also ruled that the previous medical decision could not be imposed on a new doctor. 

This judgement throws the burden of responsibility back on to the doctor, 

On June 5, 2015; the European Court of Human Rights decided that Vincent Lambert, a cognitively disabled man, could have his food and water withdrawn causing his death by dehydration. Lambert's parent's appealed the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.

To intentionally withdraw fluids from a person who is not otherwise dying is a form of euthanasia by omission because the person directly and intentionally dies from dehydration and not from a medical condition.

Euthanasia is not a human right in Europe.

The following article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on July 17, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Two cases were brought to the European Court on Human Rights hoping for a Canada-style EU-wide imposition of euthanasia as a fundamental right. Case dismissed. From the Telegraph story:

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a right-to-die case brought by a paralysed former builder and the widow of man who had locked-in syndrome. 

Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, whose 58-year-old husband Tony died more than two years ago, brought the case at the court in Strasbourg – the culmination of their campaign that disabled people should have the right to be helped to die with dignity. 

But in a written judgment on Thursday, the court said: “In its decision in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the applications inadmissible. The decision is final.” 

It comes after it emerged on Wednesday that two sisters are holding a party to raise £8,000 to pay for their mother to end her life in a Swiss clinic.

By the way, the, “Hey kids, let’s raise money for mom to kill herself!” party is off. 

I am very pleased by the decision. If this toxic death-dealing is to become legal, it should be through democratic processes. 

The Telegraph’s story about the case involved two people with serious disabilities. Despite that, the paper is running poll asking whether assisted suicide should be legalized for the “terminally ill.” So typical.

Court challenge: Belgian doctor kills depressed woman by euthanasia.

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM NEWS RELEASE

3 September 2014 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

E-MAIL: globalmedia@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

ADF represents son asking European Court of Human Rights to take case against Belgium.

Tom Mortier

Strasbourg, France – Alliance Defending Freedom filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights Wednesday on behalf of Tom Mortier, who is challenging Belgium’s laws that allow euthanasia. Mortier’s mother was put to death by a doctor for “untreatable depression” even though she was not terminally ill. Mortier did not find out what had happened until he received a telephone call the day after her death.

“The government has an obligation to protect life, not assist in promoting death,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Robert Clarke. “A person can claim that she should be able to do whatever she pleases, but that does not override the government’s responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable. We are encouraging the European Court to uphold this principle, which is completely consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Godelieva De Troyer

Oncologist Wim Distelmans killed Godelieva De Troyer, a Belgium citizen who was not terminally ill, because of “untreatable depression” in April 2012 after receiving consent from three other physicians who had no previous involvement with her care. De Troyer’s doctor of more than 20 years had denied her request to be euthanized in September 2011, but after a 2,500 EUR donation to Life End Information Forum, an organization co-founded by Distelmans, he carried out her request to die because of the depression. The donation gives rise to an apparent conflict of interest.

No one contacted Mortier before his mother’s death despite the fact that he says her depression was not only largely the result of a break-up with a man, but also due to her feelings of distance from her family.

Distelmans has no psychiatric qualifications, and none of the doctors involved had any enduring doctor-patient relationship with De Troyer. In addition, the commission the government established to investigate any failure to observe the euthanasia law has been led, since its creation, by Distelmans. Despite evidence of widespread abuse of the law, the commission has never referred a case to the prosecutor.

As the ADF application explains, “The institutions of the Council of Europe have shown consistent opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia…. [T]he only positive duty on a State is the positive duty to protect life.”

The application argues that Belgium’s law, which now allows children to be killed as well, has gone too far: 

“the balance has shifted unacceptably in favour of personal autonomy at the expense of the important public interest and a State’s obligation under Article 2 (the right to life).” 

“People suffering from depression need compassion and love, not a prescription for death,” said ADF Senior Counsel Roger Kiska. “The state has a duty to put the necessary safeguards in place so that suffering patients receive adequate care from doctors and an opportunity to consult with family members.”

ADF is also involved at the ECHR in defending Switzerland’s denial of suicide drugs to a woman who does not suffer from any fatal disease. That case, Gross v. Switzerland, is very similar to a previous case, Haas v. Switzerland, in which the ECHR in 2011 unanimously rejected the claim that Switzerland had an obligation to assist individuals in committing suicide.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organisation that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.   # # # | Ref. 44739

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:

Woman requested assisted suicide because of advanced age.

The following article was written by Ed Madden and published in the Irish Medical Times on July 18, 2013. 

Link to the article.

Ed Madden

Ed Madden, BL, looks at a recent European Court of Human Rights case in which an 82-year-old woman sought the right to be allowed to obtain a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital to end her own life.

Ms Alda Gross is 82 years old and lives in Switzerland. For many years, she had expressed a wish to end her own life. She was becoming more and more frail as time went by and was unwilling to continue suffering the decline of her physical and mental faculties.

In 2005, following a failed suicide attempt, she received inpatient treatment for six months in a psychiatric hospital. This treatment did not, however, alter her wish to die. As she was afraid of the possible consequences of another failed suicide attempt, she wished to end her life by taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital.

‘Selfish motives’

She contacted the assisted-death association, EXIT, for support. They informed her that it would be difficult to find a medical practitioner who would be ready to provide her with a medical prescription for the lethal drug. This was despite the fact that under the terms of Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, assisting another person to commit suicide is not a punishable offence unless it is done for “selfish motives”.

In October 2008 a psychiatrist gave an expert opinion that “there was no doubt” that Ms Gross was capable of forming her own judgment. He noted that her wish to die was reasoned and well-considered, had persisted for several years and was not based on any psychiatric illness. From a psychiatric/medical point of view, he did not have any objection to her being prescribed a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital. However, he refrained from issuing the necessary prescription on the grounds that he did not want to confuse the roles of medical expert and treating physician.

Ms Gross subsequently made a request for a prescription to three other medical practitioners, all of whom declined to provide her with the means of ending her own life. When the Health Board of the Canton of Zurich declined a similar request, Ms Gross took her case to the Swiss courts.

Private life

She argued that her right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached by the refusal of the medical authorities to provide her with the means of ending her own life. She claimed that her right under the Convention to decide by which means and at what point her life would end was “illusory”. The state was under an obligation to provide her with the necessary means to exercise her right to die in a concrete and effective way. Both the Administrative Court and the Federal Supreme Court rejected her case. Ms Gross appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

In May 2013, the European Court issued its judgment in the case. The Court said that the notion of “private life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept, which encompasses, inter alia, the right to personal autonomy and personal development.

Without in any way negating the principle of the sanctity of life protected under the Convention, many people are concerned that in an era of growing medical sophistication combined with longer life expectancy, they should not be forced to ‘linger on’ in old age or ‘in states of advanced physical or mental decrepitude’, which conflicted with strongly-held ideas of self and personal identity. Ms Gross’s wish to be provided with a dose of sodium pentobarbital allowing her to end her life fell within the scope of her right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention.

Under the case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, a doctor was entitled to prescribe sodium pentobarbital in order to allow his patient to commit suicide, provided that specific conditions were fulfilled. In this regard, The Swiss courts had referred to the medical ethics guidelines on the care of patients at end-of-life issued by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS). These guidelines did not have the formal quality of law. In any event, as Ms Gross was not suffering from a terminal illness, her case did not fall within the scope of those guidelines.

A chilling effect

The Court observed that there was no other material containing principles or standards which could serve as guidelines as to whether and in what circumstances a doctor was entitled to issue a prescription for sodium pentobarbital to a patient who, like Ms Gross, was not suffering from a terminal illness. The lack of clear legal guidelines was likely to have “a chilling effect” on doctors who would otherwise be inclined to provide someone such as Ms Gross with the requested medical prescription.

The Court said that Ms Gross “must have found herself in a state of anguish and uncertainty” regarding the extent of her right to end her life. This would not have occurred had there been clear, state-approved guidelines. The Court acknowledged that there might be difficulties in finding the necessary political consensus on a controversial question such as this with a profound ethical and moral impact. However, those difficulties were inherent in any democratic process and could not absolve the government from fulfilling its obligations.

The Court concluded that Swiss law, while providing the possibility of obtaining a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital on medical prescription, did not provide sufficient guidelines ensuring clarity as to the extent of that right. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that respect. The Court did not, however, adopt a stance on what should be contained in such guidelines. That was a matter for the Swiss authorities.

Three of the seven judges issued a joint dissenting judgment.

References: [2013] ECHR 429; [2013] ECHR 580

Irish woman loses Supreme Court Appeal that challenged the ban on assisted suicide in Ireland

Peter Saunders

The following article was written by Dr. Peter Saunders, the Campaign Director of the Care Not Killing Alliance and published on his blog.

A 59-year-old Irish woman today lost her Supreme Court challenge to the ban on assisted suicide.

Marie Fleming is a 59 year old former Irish lecturer who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and wanted her partner to be able to help her kill herself without risk of prosecution (See Irish Times and BBC Europe reports).

She had argued the ban on assisted suicide breached her Constitutional rights and discriminated against her as a disabled person.

This morning, however, the Supreme Court’s seven judges concluded that 

“there is no constitutional right to commit suicide or to arrange for the determination of one’s life at a time of one’s choosing”.

Fleming's landmark case in Ireland is very similar to that of Debbie Purdy in Britain, who won a case in 2009 forcing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to make public the criteria he used in deciding to bring a prosecution for assisting suicide. These criteria were published in February 2010 and have been the subject of some controversy.

What makes the Fleming case particularly interesting is that her partner who wishes to avoid prosecution is none other than Tom Curran, the Coordinator for Exit International Europe (EIE), a pro-euthanasia lobby group (EIE is part of Exit International, which is headed by controversial Australian euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke). 

Suicide was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, but Section 2.2 of the Criminal Law Suicide Act 1993 makes it an offence to ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’ a suicide. Those convicted under this law still face a custodial sentence of up to 14 years.

The Irish Act is almost identical to the Suicide Act 1961 of England and Wales, with the exception that in the latter the words ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’ were amended to ‘encourage or assist’ by the Coroners and Justice Act in 2009 in an attempt to make it easier to secure convictions in cases of internet suicide promotion where the guilty party did not personally know the victim.

In her case against Ireland, the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Fleming claimed section 2.2 of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act, which renders it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another, was unconstitutional on grounds that it breached her personal autonomy rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights (See more here)

Fleming argued that the absolute ban should and must be relaxed to meet her particular circumstances as a terminally ill person in severe pain who is mentally competent to decide when and how she wants to end her life but cannot do so without assistance. She claimed that the law discriminated against her as a disabled person who needed assistance to kill herself.

A three judge High Court ruled earlier that the absolute ban did not disproportionately infringe Ms Fleming's personal rights under the Constitution and was wholly justified in the public interest to protect vulnerable people.

The High Court also ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions had no power to issue guidelines setting out what factors she would consider in deciding whether to prosecute cases of assisted suicide. However, the court was however ‘sure’ the Director would adopt a humane and sensitive approach to Ms Fleming's plight, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said.

Ms Fleming was not appealing against that aspect of the court's decision. Her appeal instead focussed on arguments that the absolute ban on assisted suicide breached her personal autonomy rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights and that, in her particular circumstances, this ban was not justified on public interest grounds but was disproportionate and discriminatory.

This claim has now failed, with the Supreme Court rejecting 'the submission that there exists a constitutional right for a limited class of persons, which would include the appellant. While it is clear that the appellant is in a most tragic situation, the Court has to find constitutional rights anchored in the Constitution... [and it] has not been the jurisprudence of the Constitution that rights be identified for a limited group of persons.'

Fleming’s case rested on the flawed assumption that, since suicide itself is not illegal, there is thereby a right to suicide. It is on this basis that she claimed that as a seriously disabled person she was being discriminated against for not being able to exercise that right, when able-bodied people can.

Dignity in Dying (the former British Voluntary Euthanasia Society) has used a similar line of argument.

However this is to misunderstand the basis and intention of the law.

When the British Parliament passed the Suicide Act in 1961 it was assured that the decriminalisation of suicide did not indicate any reduction of the seriousness with which either (a) suicide or (b) assisting suicide were viewed.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, moving the Suicide Bill's Third Reading, said:

'Because we have taken the view, as Parliament and the Government have taken, that the treatment of people who attempt to commit suicide should no longer be through the criminal courts, it in no way lessens, nor should it lessen, the respect for the sanctity of life which we all share. It must not be thought that because we are changing the method of treatment for those unfortunate people, we seek to depreciate the gravity of the action of anyone who tries to commit suicide…..' (Hansard: HC Deb 28 July 1961 vol 645: 1961(a): Cols 822-823)

He went on:

'I should like to state as solemnly as I can….that we wish to give no encouragement whatever to suicide…..I hope that nothing that I have said will give the impression that the act of self-murder, of self-destruction, is regarded at all lightly by the Home Office or the Government.' (Hansard:HC Deb 19 July 1961 vol 644: Cols 1425-1426)

Fleming and others wish to argue that in some cases suicide is not serious and is in fact a morally good course of action. That is a position that needs to be strongly resisted at all costs.

It is one thing to argue that people who attempt suicide should be treated with mercy and compassion by the courts. But it is quite another to argue that committing suicide, taking one’s own life, is a moral good and thereby a right.

That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed, which once established would be used as a legal lever for more and more incremental extension.

Judgment Of the Supreme Court: Fleming v Ireland