Protecting the vulnerable still the goal, says government lawyer in B.C. assisted suicide case.

The Toronto Star reported on the first day of the BC Court of Appeal hearing of the Carter case, the case that seeks to legalize assisted suicide and a limited form of euthanasia in Canada.

The article was written by Petti Fong and published in the Toronto Star on March 18, 2013.

Protecting the vulnerable still the goal, says government lawyer.


Petti Fong - March 18, Toronto Star, Vancouver

Audrey Laferriere doesn’t understand all the legal arguments being heard in B.C.’s highest court over Canada’s assisted suicide laws but she said Monday she’s worried enough that she wanted to come and listen.

“I’m interested in the court case because it’s about security of persons and security of life,” said Laferriere. “I’m not religious but we have the right as Canadian citizens that we have security of persons and no one can come and just end your life.”

Laferriere, 70, has a spouse with depression whom, she fears, might one day find a physician to help him have an assisted suicide. She said she’s against any changes to Canadian laws that will allow that.

The federal government is arguing in the B.C. Court of Appeal that a lower court decision last summer, which found Canadian assisted suicide laws unconstitutional, should remain as law.

Averting all harmful deaths was the objective of the last Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the matter, according to Donnaree Nygard, the lead counsel for the Attorney General of Canada.

“Minimizing the risk of vulnerable individuals to being induced to commit suicide,” was the goal of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1993, said Nygard. “The goal was avoiding the harm caused that some lives are less worthy of protection.”

In the 1990s, Sue Rodriguez, of Victoria, fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to have an assisted suicide, but it ruled in 1993 by a vote of 5-4 that the law should remain.

A year later, Rodriguez, who had ALS, died after getting help committing suicide from an unknown physician.

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling last June found section 241 of the Criminal Code, which makes it illegal for anyone to counsel a person to commit suicide, violated the Charter rights of people with disabilities.

The lead plaintiff in the challenge to the current laws, Gloria Taylor, a woman who, like Rodriguez, was diagnosed with ALS, was given the first constitutional exemption to have a physician-assisted suicide. Taylor, however, died last October in hospital without the help of a physician after getting an unexpected infection.

Her case, brought on her behalf by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, is being appealed by the federal and provincial government in the Court of Appeal.

Nygard told the judges Monday the issue has been debated and considered by Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada, and the decision has always been that the rights of vulnerable people outweigh the rights of those wanting physician-assisted suicide.

The case will be heard this week with the B.C. Civil Liberties expected to make their arguments on Wednesday. Groups including the Farewell Foundation, which is for assisted-suicide and the Alliance of People with Disabilities, which is for maintaining the current laws, will also be making submissions.

Previous articles.
* Legalizing assisted suicide creates a double standard.
* EPC wants BC Court of Appeal to reverse errors in assisted suicide court decision.
* Suicide Prevention for All. No Assisted Suicide.
* Euthanasia at the water cooler.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – Canadian Update – The battle is in the courts.

By Alex Schadenberg,
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On April 21, 2010, Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, was resoundingly defeated in parliament by a vote of 228 to 59. Many Canadians wrote letters or signed post-cards to Members of Parliament urging them to vote against Bill C-384 and to maintain the protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The euthanasia lobby in Canada reacted to their massive defeat in parliament by turning their attention to the courts.

In February 2011, the Farewell Foundation, a group in British Columbia that exists to aid their members suicides, launched a case in the BC Court to challenge the constitutional validity of Canada’s assisted suicide act. The Farewell Foundation case was challenging a ruling by the BC Registrar of Companies who denied the Farewell Foundation corporate status. The law does not permit organizations that exist solely to break the law to given corporate status.

In early April 2011, the Farewell Foundation launched a second case in the BC Court that stated that the laws that protect Canadians from assisted suicide are unconstitutional. The Farewell Foundation stated that five of their members wished to die by assisted suicide and the law unconstitutionally infringed upon their “right to die” by assisted suicide.

BC Supreme Court Justice, Lynn Smith, was assigned to the Farewell Foundation case.

In late April 2011, the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) launched the Carter case to overturn the laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The BCCLA representing the Carter family, stated that the rights of Kay Carter were infringed upon because she had to go to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide. The BCCLA also stated that the Carter family broke the assisted suicide law, by arranging and bringing their mother, Kay, to die by assisted suicide in Switzerland.

The BCCLA, in Carter, did not limit their challenge to the assisted suicide statutes of the Criminal Code. The definitions used in the case includes a challenge to the laws that protect Canadians from euthanasia.

Justice Smith asked to have the Farewell Foundation case and the Carter case heard together. At a pre-trial hearing Justice Smith indicated that the Carter case would be heard but the case lacked urgency, since Kay Carter had already died in Switzerland and the Carter family had not been prosecuted for their part in their mother’s death.

In response to Justice Smith stating that the Carter case lacked urgency, on June 28, the BCCLA amended their notice of claim by adding Gloria Taylor, a woman who is living with ALS.

On August 3, Justice Smith accepted the amended notice of claim. Due to the health condition of Gloria Taylor, Smith decided to fast-track the Carter case. At the same time Smith questioned the relevancy of the Farewell Foundation case and a few weeks later she rejected the Farewell Foundation case, while encouraging the Farewell Foundation to intervene in the Carter case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC – BC received intervener standing in the Carter case. EPC asked to intervene and to have the right to introduce evidence in the court. The court granted EPC and EPC – BC intervener standing but denied them the right to call evidence.

In early November, the Leblanc case was filed by lawyer René Duval in Trois-Rivières Quebec. Duval seeks to have Canada’s assisted suicide law declared unconstitutional on behalf of his client, Ginette Leblanc, who lives with ALS. The Leblanc case is written in a tighter manner by limiting its challenge to the assisted suicide act and not challenging the law pertaining to euthanasia.

The Carter case was heard from November 14 to December 16 in a Vancouver courtroom. The intervention by EPC and EPC - BC was heard by Justice Smith on December 14.

The Carter case is difficult to define because the BCCLA, on behalf of the Carter family and Gloria Taylor, made it appear that they were seeking to legalize assisted suicide but in fact they were seeking a wider decision that would grant the plaintiffs euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Carter case also included within the Notice of Claim language that might become the framework for a law that allows the direct and intentional killing of people by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This framework in the Carter case does not restrict the acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide to physicians. Carter defines who carries out the acts as: a person acting “under the general supervision of a medical practitioner.” Family members or other care-givers may be able to act under the general supervision of a medical practitioner. Therefore a family member could cause the death under the language in the Carter case.

The Carter case does not restrict acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide to people who are terminally ill. Carter states that eligibility for death should be based on people who are “grievously and irremediably ill.” Carter does not define the terms grievously or irremediatebly but provides these examples: “cancer, chronic renal failure and/or cardiac failure, and degenerative neurological diseases such as Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis.” The definition does not exclude people with chronic disabilities and it is not limited to terminal conditions.

John Coppard

John Coppard, from Victoria British Columbia, became involved with opposing assisted suicide for similar reasons. He stated in a letter to the editor:

“As a person who is “grievously and irremediably ill” with Grade IV brain cancer, I would be affected should this case succeed. Two and a half years after being given a 20 percent chance of surviving five years, I am doing very well on medication approved by Health Canada only a year ago, within a week of my cancer coming back.

Had I been given the legal choice of assisted suicide when I first received my terrible prognosis, or when my cancer returned, when I felt hopeless, I don’t know what I would have done.

Now I’m doing very well, thanks to medical advancements that are coming faster than at any time in our history. Our anti-assisted suicide laws protected me and gave me a chance for a long and happy life, just as they were intended to do.”

In the state of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, assisted suicide is limited to people with a terminal prognosis of having six months to live. Jeanette Hall, who lives in Oregon, had a terminal prognosis and she wanted to die by assisted suicide. Instead, her physician convinced her to accept further treatment for her cancer. Eleven years later she stated in a letter to the editor:

“I wanted to do what our [assisted suicide] law allowed, and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me not to give up, and ultimately I decided to fight my disease… If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

Carter has now been argued before Justice Smith and we are waiting for her decision. Based on other decisions that Smith has made and her reputation as an activist judge, we are concerned about the potential of a bad decision by Smith.

If Smith decides, in some way, to legislate from the bench and to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, then the Attorney General of Canada will need to immediately appeal the decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. From their, the case will end-up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 27, 2012; the preliminary hearings are starting in Trois-Rivières Quebec on the Leblanc case. The Leblanc case may be more dangerous than the Carter case because Leblanc limits its challenge to assisted suicide and it does not attempt to impose a wide-open regime of assisted suicide on Canada. If the judge in Quebec decides to overturn our assisted suicide law, then the case will need to also be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Rene Duval, the lawyer representing Ginette Leblanc, hopes to have their case join the Carter case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The difficulty with battling issues within the court is:

* It is very hard to predict what a Judge will decide.
* It is very expensive to hire lawyers and argue before the courts.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC – BC co-intervened in the Carter case in British Columbia. EPC and Vivre dans la Dignité in Quebec are seeking to co-intervene in the Leblanc case in Quebec.

This is a very difficult undertaking and we will keep you up-to-date on the progress of these cases.

Meanwhile, you can make a difference by writing a hand-written letter to your Member of Parliament and the Hon Rob Nicholson, Attorney General, urging the Attorney General to immediately appeal any court decision that weakens our laws that protect us from euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Link to the information about the letter writing campaign.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs donations towards the cost of the court interventions. Link to donate. http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

Farewell Foundation case rejected. BCCLA case is a Recipe for Elder Abuse

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking intervener status in the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) - (Carter/Taylor) case expected that the Farewell Foundation case would be rejected because they lacked standing in the court.

The Farewell Foundation, founded by euthanasia lobby leader, Russel Ogden, sought to legalize "Swiss syle" assisted suicide in Canada, meaning that doctors and others could be involved with assisted the suicide of people who are in the most vulnerable time of their life.

The BCCLA (Carter/Taylor) case differs from the Farewell Foundation case by the fact that it seeks to legalize physician assisted suicide, whereby doctors prescribe suicide, and physician directed euthanasia, where physicians administer a lethal injection.

The EPC considers the BCCLA case to be dangerous to public safety and a recipe for elder abuse. The scourge of elder abuse has become a national concern and the prevention of elder abuse has become a national priority. Elder abuse is horrifically under-reported because research indicates that up to 70% of the time it is done by family members or people to whom the victim is dependent upon.

The BCCLA case will open new avenues for elder abuse because it would enable family members and care-givers to subtly pressure or coerce a vulnerable person into "choosing" death by lethal dose. For many, choice will be only an illusion.

The EPC rejects the idea that it is somehow necessary to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide to have a dignified death. A parliamentary committee that has investigated and is making recommendations for improvements in Palliative care, Elder Abuse prevention, Suicide prevention and the needs of Canadians with disabilities, is due to release its report in November 2011. The BCCLA cannot suggest that legalizing euthanasia is necessary before it has given the government a chance to implement this report.

In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, the suicide rate has steadily climbed since 2000 with Oregon's suicide rate now being 35% higher than the national average. This corresponds with other trends that suggest that the social acceptance of assisted suicide creates a suicide contagion effect.

The EPC is particularly concerned with the language of the BCCLA - Notice of Application which indicates a particularly negative attitude to the lives of people with disabilities. Living with a disability is not a life not worth living but rather a challenge to society to enable people with disabilities to live with equality and acceptance.

The EPC is also very concerned with the one-sided presentation by the media of these cases. I cannot remember a more monolithically one-sided presentation by the media of an important social question.

Even though the EPC is seeking intervener status in the case, we have been rarely contacted, even after sending out a media release, and when contacted and interviewed our comments have gone missing from the article. Media outlets will state that Canadians support the legalization of assisted suicide, even though the media has utterly failed at providing a balanced perspective.

Farewell Foundation case rejected. BCCLA case is a recipe for elder abuse.

The Vancouver Sun reported that the case by the Farewell Foundation, a group in BC that is trying to legalize assisted suicide, was thrown-out by Justice Lynn Smith. The Farewell Foundation was attempting to legalize "Swiss style" assisted suicide in Canada, which means that they wanted the law to allow doctors and other people to be able to assist a suicide.

A couple of weeks ago, Justice Smith fast-tracked the case by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). The BCCLA is representing the family of Kay Carter, who died by assisted suicide at the Dignitas suicide center in January 2010, and Gloria Taylor, who lives with ALS. The BCCLA case is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, via the court, in Canada

Laura Kane, who wrote the article for the Vancouver Sun stated:

Justice Lynn Smith ruled the foundation did not have a strong enough case to challenge the law, saying anonymous members of the group must identify themselves in order to prove the law directly affects them.

However, Smith invited the group to apply to intervene in a parallel right-to-die case led by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die had argued that the law against assisting suicide — which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison — violates its members’ right to die with dignity in the future.

Of the group’s 117 members, only five were identified as plaintiffs in the case. One of the plaintiffs committed suicide in July.

Donnaree Nygard, lawyer for the federal attorney-general, argued the case was “hypothetical” because the plaintiffs were not facing criminal charges for assisted suicide.

Farewell Foundation lawyer Jason Gratl said the group attempted something new by challenging a law on behalf of anonymous members, and was unsuccessful.

“Justice Smith found that if the Farewell Foundation wished to bring a constitutional challenge, the members whose health is deteriorating must identify themselves,” he said.

Russel Ogden, a founding director of the Farewell Foundation, said he was encouraged by the invitation to intervene by Smith, who is also overseeing the BCCLA case.

“I would compare it to someone in a race who knocks over a hurdle,” Ogden said. “It hurts a bit, you lose a few seconds, but you’re still in the race. You don’t give up.”

If its application to intervene is approved by the court, the foundation would be able to advance many of the same arguments it would have presented in its challenge to the Criminal Code, Ogden said.

A party with intervener status may introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

The BCCLA-led case was recently fast-tracked due to the failing health of plaintiff Gloria Taylor, 63, suffering from late-stage amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. The trial is set to begin Nov. 15.

The case proposes a medical model that restricts the assisted-suicide procedure to medical professionals. The Farewell Foundation, on the other hand, advocates the Swiss model, in which right-to-die organizations oversee the procedure.

“Many of our members do not see this as a medical procedure, and do not want it to occur in a clinical setting,” Ogden said.

Francine Lalonde

Last year the Parliament of Canada rejected Bill C-384 that was sponsored by Francine Lalonde (BQ) which would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, by a vote of 228 to 59. Since then an all-party committee of members of parliament have been working on a report to suggest ways that Canada needs to improve its care in the areas of: Palliative Care, Suicide Prevention, Elder Abuse and Disability issues. The Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care will release their report in November 2011.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is seeking intervener status in the BCCLA case. EPC expected that the Farewell Foundation case would be thrown out because it lacked standing in relation to how serious it is to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Farewell Foundation case attempted to legalize, "Swiss style" assisted suicide while the BCCLA (Carter/Taylor) case is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide via the court.

The EPC recognizes that the laws that prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable time of their life.

The EPC rejects the concept that it is necessary to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in order to ensure a "death with dignity".

EPC also understands that societal attitudes will lead to people with disabilities being steered towards euthanasia and elders who are vulnerable or being abused by family members or care-givers will be subtly pressured to die. These people will not "freely choose" but rather they will be coerced into dying by others who the person has been manipulated by and who that elderly person is dependant upon.

BC Judge fast-tracks euthanasia and assisted suicide case in Canada

On August 4, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) reacted to the decision by Justice Lynn Smith, to fast-track the (Carter/Taylor) case which challenges Canada's laws that protect vulnerable people from euthanasia and assisted suicide. This update provides further information.

Justice Smith, agreed to fast-track a challenge to Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide laws by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) who are representing Gloria Taylor and the family of Kay Carter, the (Carter/Taylor) case. The case will be heard starting on November 15, 2011.

Last year, Canada’s parliament rejected Bill C-384 that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 228 to 59. After losing the political debate, the right to die lobby is bringing their demand for legalized killing to the courts.

The BCCLA claims that euthanasia and assisted suicide can be legalized with strict safeguards.

A study, published in the CMAJ (May 2010) found that 32% of the euthanasia deaths in Belgium were done without request or consent. Another study published in the BMJ (Oct 2010) found that only 52.8% of the euthanasia deaths in Belgium were reported.

In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, the overall suicide rate has climbed since 2000 and is now 35% higher than the national average. At the same time people, such as Barbara Wagner & Randy Stroup, who were denied medical treatment by the Oregon Health plan have been steered to accept assisted suicide.

The BCCLA launched the Carter case in April, 2011 claiming that Canada’s criminal code provisions that protect people, at the most vulnerable time of their life, from euthanasia and assisted suicide were unconstitutional.

The Carter case concerns the family of Kay Carter who accompanied their mother to Switzerland when she died by assisted suicide at the Dignitas suicide center.

The claim states that Kay Carter’s rights were violated by a law that prevented her from dying by euthanasia or assisted suicide in Canada. The claim also states that Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson broke the law by aiding, planning and possibly encouraging their mother to go to the Dignitas suicide center. Lee & Hollis stated that they could potentially be prosecuted by Canada’s assisted suicide law, that they consider to be unconstitutional.

Definitions:
The Carter/Taylor case is asking the court to legalize assisted suicide and what they refer to as “Consensual Physician-Assisted Death” (euthanasia). Consensual Physician-Assisted Death is defined as: the administration of medication or other treatment that intentionally brings about a patient’s death by the act of a medical practitioner. This definition means that they are asking the court to legalize euthanasia by consent.

The Carter/Taylor claim uses confusing definitions. It states: For the purpose of this claim, “physician assisted suicide” and “consensual physician-assisted death” will be defined as “physician-assisted death.” The media continues to refer to “physician-assisted death” as assisted suicide.

On June 28, 2011; the BCCLA launched an amendment to the Carter case by adding Gloria Taylor (63) to the statement of claim. Taylor, who lives with ALS, says that she wants to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide and the laws that prevent her from dying in this way are unconstitutional.

Taylor’s condition, as stated by the BCCLA, created a greater level of urgency for the case which was the reason that Justice Smith agreed to fast-track the case.

Taylor demanded that if the court could not make a timely decision that it should exempt Taylor and her doctor so that she could be killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide in a manner approved by the court.

To create even greater urgency to the case, the BCCLA demanded that if the court is not able to make a timely decision, that the court must pay all costs related to the case and the required care for Taylor.

In the meantime, “the Farewell Foundation case”, that is also attempting to legalize assisted suicide through the court, may go into legal limbo or be joined to the Carter/Taylor case.

The Carter/Taylor is a serious attempt to strike down Canada’s laws that protect its vulnerable citizens from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC is seeking intervention status in the BCCLA (Carter/Taylor) court case. Our intervention application will decided by the Court this October.

Donations can be made to help EPC intervene in the Carter/Taylor case at: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033 London Ontario N6C 6A8 or online at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

The Euthanasia Lobby is trying legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada through the courts.

The Euthanasia lobby has turned its attention to trying to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada through the courts. Last April (2010), Bill C-384, sponsored by Francine Lalonde (BQ), that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, was defeated by 228 to 59 in parliament. The resounding defeat for the euthanasia lobby indicated that it was unlikely, anytime soon, that doctors would gain the right to cause the death of their patients through democratic means.

Several cases that have been launched in British Columbia with the intent of striking down the laws that protect vulnerable people from euthanasia and assisted suicide by having those laws declared unconstitutional.

The Farewell Foundation:
In February 2011, the Farewell Foundation of BC applied for incorporation status as a group that would assist the suicides of its members. The Farewell Foundation was formed as a corporation based on the principles of the Dignitas suicide center in Switzerland.

The Farewell Foundation considers the assisted suicide act in Canada to be unconstitutional.

The Registrar of Companies rejected the Farewell Foundation’s application for incorporation based on the fact that they existed for the purpose of breaking the law.

On April 8, 2011, the Farewell Foundation challenged the rejection of incorporation status and suggested that the assisted suicide law (Section 241b of the criminal code) is unconstitutional and therefore is not binding on the Registrar of Companies.

The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA):
The BCCLA launched the Carter case on April 26, 2011 to strike down, as unconstitutional, Canada’s criminal code provisions that protect people, at the most vulnerable time of their life, from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Carter case focused the family of Kay Carter who accompanied her when she died by assisted suicide at the Dignitas suicide center in Switzerland.

The claim stated that Kay Carter’s rights were violated by an unconstitutional law that prevented her from dying by euthanasia or assisted suicide in Canada.

The claim also stated that Lee Carter (daughter) and Hollis Johnson (son-in-law) claim to have broken the law by aiding their mother by planning and possibly encouraging her to go to the Dignitas suicide center in Switzerland. Lee & Hollis are challenging the constitutionality of Canada’s laws that prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide because they could potentially be prosecuted under those laws.

The Carter case clearly intends to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada by challenging the constitutionality of Sections 14, 21, 22, 222, 241 of the criminal code.

Section 222 is the homicide provision in the criminal code. Euthanasia is a form of homicide because it is the act of actually causing the death of another person. It is very concerning when anyone challenges provisions of the homicide Act.

Section 241 is the assisted suicide Act in the criminal code. Assisted Suicide means to aid, abet (encourage) or counsel another person to commit suicide.

After several case management meetings where the Attorney General considered the Farewell Foundation case and the Carter case to be the same legal issue, where standing for the BCCLA and the Farewell Foundation were questioned and where it was suggested that the case lacked urgency. The BCCLA went back to the drawing board and amended their case.

On June 28, 2011; the BCCLA launched an amendment to the Carter case by adding Gloria Taylor (63) to the statement of claim. Taylor, who lives with ALS, claims that she would like to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide and the laws that prevent someone else from causing or aiding her death by euthanasia or assisted suicide are unconstitutional.

Taylor’s condition, as stated by the BCCLA, creates a greater level of urgency for the case because she may be entering the terminal phase of her condition.

The amendment to the case also asks the court to grant an exemption for Taylor and her doctor so that she can be killed by euthanasia or have her suicide assisted in a manner approved by the court.

To create even greater urgency to the case, the BCCLA has requested that if the court is not able to come to decision in a timely manner or grant Taylor an exemption to the law, that the court must pay all costs related to the case and the required care for Taylor.

From this point forward we will refer to the case as the Carter case.

The Carter case, if successful, would give doctors the right to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person by lethal injection and it would give doctors the right to prescribe lethal doses to their patients, knowing that their patient intends to commit suicide.

It is sad how this case uses the stories of people with chronic degenerative conditions and disabilities to remove protections in law that exist for vulnerable Canadians. People with disabilities are more likely to be steered toward assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Disability activist, Mark Pickup, (picture) from Alberta stated to EPC:

"the newspaper described Kay Carter (89) as a Right to die proponent. She developed spinal stenosis in 2008 which causes "pain, lack of coordination, numbness, loss of bladder and bowel control and paralysis." That was enough reason to overturn laws against assisted suicide? I disagree. I've had those very same symptoms (and many others) throughout my 27 year journey with multiple sclerosis. I want our laws prohibiting assisted suicide to stay in effect and enforced, in case I despair and happen to meet someone like Kay's daughter and son-in-law who agrees with killing me."

The BCCLA emphasizes in their statement that euthanasia and assisted suicide would be limited to people who have voluntarily requested and consented to be killed.

Only parliament is able to devise rules to ensure that “safeguards” will be upheld in Canada. Where euthanasia and assisted suicide has been legalized in other jurisdictions safeguards have failed to protect people who did not consent or qualify for death by lethal injection.

When euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands it was limited to people who were terminally ill and experiencing uncontrolled suffering. The most recent Euthanasia report includes as a category the deaths of people with dementia or Alzheimer disease. The Groningen Protocol was instituted in the Netherlands several years ago permitting death by lethal injection for infants with disabilities. It is estimated that 550 deaths occur each year in the Netherlands without request or consent and it is also estimated that 20% of all euthanasia deaths go unreported.

Recent studies concerning the practice of euthanasia in Belgium, where euthanasia became legal in 2003, shows that 32% of euthanasia deaths are done without request or consent and 47% of euthanasia deaths go unreported.

The safeguards in the State of Oregon that are promoted by the euthanasia lobby as being full-proof are illusory at best.
• The Oregon law does not require a witness at the time of death and the physician who prescribes the lethal dose is only present at the death about 20% of the time. If a person changes their mind or if the lethal dose is administered without consent, who would know?
• The Oregon statistics are invalid because the report comes from the physician who prescribes the lethal dose. The physician will not self-report abuse. The forms are submitted after the death. The information concerning the death is anecdotal at best because the physician is rarely present at the death.

The Euthanasia lobby insists that in Oregon, a physician only prescribes suicide based on the free choice of the patient.

Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, who had different forms of cancer, were offered assisted suicide by the Oregon Health Plan but denied treatment. We don’t want Canada’s universal health plan to steer people to suicide by offering assisted suicide or euthanasia as a “plan of treatment” to patients who are denied treatment.

When considering the scourge of elder abuse in Canada, the BCCLA should not be so sure that people will not be steered into an unwanted or unsuspecting death. Canadian statistics show that elder abuse is a growing problem with approximately 70% of all abuse being carried out by friends or family members. Elder abuse is often not reported because the victim is usually dependent on the abuser or believes that they have, in some way, caused the abuse or fear that, if reported, the abuse will become worse.

Elder abuse is often experienced as financial, psychological or physical abuse, but there have been cases of homicide. The Oregon assisted suicide statistics are consistent with the demographic that are most likely victims of elder abuse.

To give the power over life and death to another person, even a doctor, such as a law that legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide, can be used by unscrupulous family members and medical care-givers as the ultimate form of elder abuse or to eliminate problem patients.

The Carter/Taylor factum states that a person who is “grievously and irremediably ill” only limited by the capacity to consent would be eligible to die by lethal dose.

The term, irremediably ill is not limited to a person with a terminal illness. This definition would include anyone with a terminal condition. Having a terminal condition does not make you terminally ill.

A person who has diabetes and is insulin dependent may qualify as irremediably ill.

Grievously ill would include most types of disability or chronic conditions. I have a friend with MS who is not terminally ill. He is very productive, but given different circumstances he could easily be considered grievously ill. I have another friend who has brain cancer, but is now in remission. He is well aware that the cancer is likely to return.

Another friend broke his back in two places 25 years ago in a vehicle accident. He lives with chronic pain, but he is not terminally ill. He has difficulty dealing with his pain when he is alone and feeling abandoned by the world. He is grievously ill and would be a candidate for euthanasia, especially when he is going through a difficult period.

The laws that prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide are designed to protect a person at the most vulnerable time of life. Society is already experiencing many pressures to control the cost of health care and people with disabilities and those with chronic conditions are already being made to feel like they are a burden on society.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, for any circumstance, does not grant new rights to the individual but rather it provides doctors with the right to directly and intentionally end your life and it removes the protections that exist in law for people at the most vulnerable time of their life.

Exoo, Exit, Derek Humphry and assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

With all the suicide cases related to the Final Exit Network in Australia, the Gladd Asphyxiation mail order (Exit Hoods) and the connection of Derek Humphry who is promoting these assisted suicide groups, it is important view the documentary by UK documentary producer Jon Ronson titled: Reverend Death that is about the suicide activist and assisted suicide promoter, Rev. George Exoo.

In 2010, George Exoo made plans to open a suicide clinic in Gastonia North Carolina, that was designed to be similar to the Dignitas suicide Clinic in Switzerland. Link to article.

The documentary, Reverend Death was shown on BBC. It can be found on U-Tube in 9 parts. It is a sad story but worth watching. 

If you are living with depression or if you are feeling suicidal go to the Your Life Counts Online Lifeline.

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/23/0VR7mK5hZwU

Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/22/SoNowKhO2os

Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/21/o-c1RyplBig

Part 4. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/20/fhGbUKp1fzc

Part 5. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/19/vctGiwee2m4

Part 6. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/18/qePaKDg4gtk

Part 7. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/17/x460pGXVlw4

Part 8. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/16/4ed5_wAgZ3c

Part 9. http://www.youtube.com/user/slackmaster2000#p/u/15/2iWYrExUceo

When watching Reverend Death, you will notice how the father of the assisted suicide lobby, Derek Humphry, refers people, for suicide assistance, to Exoo when they are not mentally stable. You will also notice at the NuTech meeting when Exoo announces that he was going to commit suicide that the participants, particularly Russel Ogden, the founder of the Farewell Foundation, are more concerned about the method rather than whether or not he should die. Finally you will hear how Exoo appears to have a sexual reaction when he is involved with assisting the suicide deaths of others.

It is important to understand that the concepts of choice and autonomy are really how the assisted suicide lobby sells assisted suicide to the public. The assisted suicide lobby is about a group of people who have become part of a death cult who view themselves as freeing the world of pain and suffering but in reality are working to remove the protections that exist in law for vulnerable people.

Link to an article about Susan Wilson's profitable assisted suicide trip to New Zealand.

Link to an article about the role in the euthanasia lobby in sending depressed and mentally unstable people to George Exoo for assisted suicide.

Oregon Death with Dignity house doc loses medical license

Dr. Stuart Weisberg, the Portland Oregon Psychiatrist who made news last June 2010 for planning to establish an assisted suicide center in a similar manner to the Dignitas assisted suicide house in Switzerland, under the name "Death with Dignity" house.

After a disciplinary hearing, related to other issues, on April 8, 2011, the Oregon Medical Board removed the license from Dr. Weisbergs to practise medicine.

People who follow the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide would remember the story of Dr. Weisberg. Link to a previous article.

What happened:
On June 1, 2004 Dr. Weisberg was put on probation by the Oregon Medical Board for:
1. Violations of the Medical Practice Act,
2. Gross negligence or repeated acts of negligence in the practice of medicine,
3. Prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose,
4. Failing to follow accepted procedures for record keeping

After fulfilling the requirements related to the probation, Dr. Weisberg was assigned a practice mentor who was approved on June 9, 2009. On June 14, 2010 Dr. Weisberg informed the Oregon Medical Board that his practice mentor no longer supported his ideas and he requested "removal from his services."

Meanwhile, his practice mentor, before being removed as practice mentor, reviewed several of his cases. During the hearing it was explained that at least two of the cases that were reviewed by the practice mentor not only recommended treatment that was not medically indicated, but also an unnecessary risk to his patients.

Compassion & Choices, the assisted suicide group in Oregon, is probably celebrating that they will not face new competition for assisted suicide any time soon.

Now that the Farewell Foundation is attempting to establish a Dignitas style assisted suicide group in Canada, maybe they will invite Weisberg to apply for the right to practise medicine in British Columbia.

BC group challenging Canada’s assisted suicide law through the court.

The Farewell Foundation in British Columbia is challenging Canada’s assisted suicide law through the court. The Farewell Foundation applied to become a non-profit corporation with the purpose of assisting the suicides of their members, in a similar manner to the Swiss suicide group Digitas. The Registrar of Companies rejected the Farewell Foundation corporation application based on the fact that the Farewell Foundation would exist to break the law.

The Farewell Foundation case is based upon their belief that Canada's assisted suicide law infringes upon Section 7 & 15 of Canada's constitution, making it unconstitutional and therefore the assisted suicide law is unenforceable.

The assisted suicide act is designed to protect vulnerable people from acts to cause their death, from taking advantage of a person who is depressed and suicidal and to prevent the ultimate form of elder abuse, imposed death.

In a media release, the Farewell Foundation announced that they were launching their case on April 20, 2011. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is following the case and will apply for intervention status at the appropriate time.

Russell Ogden, a criminologist in BC, is one of their director. He claims that times have changed and he expects that they will successfully challenge section 241(b) of the criminal code that prohibits - aiding, abetting and counseling suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that Section 241 of the Criminal Code acts as a deters people from pressuring vulnerable people to kill themselves. The law is designed to protect people from others in society. We reject that concept that assisted suicide is an autonomous act. By its very nature assisted suicide involves other people being involved in the cause of death of a person.

Farewell Foundation seeks to Challenge Canada's assisted suicide Act

A group of suicide activists, is attempting to establish a non-profit corporation in British Columbia to assist the suicides of its members and to overturn Section 241b of the criminal code, the assisted suicide Act in Canada, through the court. On March 17, 2011 the British Columbia Registrar of Companies refused to register the Farewell Foundation because the aims of the organization contravene the criminal code. The leader of the Farewell Foundation appears to be Russel Ogden, a criminologist who has been involved in the euthanasia lobby for many years. His euthanasia work has included being involved with Nu-Tech. Ogden has always claimed that he was a researcher but in fact he has always been an activist in the euthanasia lobby. In an article written by Tiffany Crawford and published in the Vancouver Sun on April 8, 2011; Crawford quotes the statement by Jason Gratl, the lawyer for the Farewell Foundation who stated:

The foundation proposes a similar model based on organizations in that country (Switzerland) such as Exit, which has 70,000 members.

This means that the Farewell Foundation intends to establish an assisted suicide killing centre/organization that will provide lethal drugs, information and devices and directly assist their deaths. The Farewell Foundation is appealing the decision of the Registrar of Companies and it is also attempting to bring its case further by challenging the assisted suicide Act itself. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is watching this case closely and will intervene in the case, if necessary, at the appropriate time.