Euthanasia: Societal Psychosis

The following article was published in the Windsor Star on September 20, 2013.

By: Jean Echlin, a nurse consultant in palliative nursing who lives in Windsor Ontario.

What kind of a society are we becoming? I question the existence of a societal psychosis, characterized by a break with reality and deviation from normal thought processes.

We abandon the notion of executing our most heinous criminals and now appear to be accepting the idea of executing our most vulnerable citizens.

We provide our criminals with good medical, occupational, entertainment and educational programs for their betterment.

In the case of our elderly we often fail miserably at providing them with quality of life in our health-care institutions. Many label our elderly and persons with disabilities, including children, as “lives not worth living.”

In addition this applies to persons with mental health issues. These are the ones at high risk for abuse if euthanasia is introduced.

This is exactly what the Quebec National Assembly is proposing in Bill-52 now before the Assembly for discussion and vote. The ideas were concocted by the Dying with Dignity Committee report following a request by the Assembly for research regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide in Quebec.

The recommendation in Bill-52 attaches euthanasia as a component of palliative hospice care. The euphemism used for euthanasia in their documents is “assistance in dying.”

Thus end-of-life care will include both palliative care and euthanasia. This flies in the face of the federal government’s defeat of Bill-384, introduced by Francine Lalonde MP, Bloc Quebecois, in 2010. Bill-384 sought to change our Criminal Code to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide and was overwhelming defeated by 228 to 59 votes.

Bill-52’s legislative package designates doctors as the health-care professionals who will do the euthanizing/executing.

Interestingly in a recent poll, 88 per cent of Canadian palliative care physicians opposed euthanasia. Moreover in August 2013, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) reaffirmed its policy on this matter: “Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide.” The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association have taken the same stand.

Those in our society who want euthanasia as an option are seeking autonomy without thinking how this will affect the many vulnerable and often silent voices who cannot protest.

How do you define autonomy, meaning: “I want death my way, at my request,” when you actually give your life over to another person who will kill you?

I do not see this as autonomy because you are giving your power to another person. Executions have been botched! Mistakes are always possible even with health-care professionals.

Another highly charged item in Bill-52 is chronic depression and mental pain/discomfort (which may be related to existential or spiritual anxiety) qualifies a person for euthanasia. Who defines this type of suffering?

Look back to 1972 at the history of abolition of the death penalty in Canada. The law was changed because, first, a wrong decision could be made and an innocent person put to death. Second, doctors debated and decided that putting someone to death was unethical and against their mandate.

Further it was declared INHUMANE to ask one person to kill another person. Now in 2013 the Quebec National Assembly has put forth a plan, subject only to provincial jurisdiction that designates doctors to kill another human being.

Who defines the ethical and moral action of this designation? I do not believe that this designation is ethical, moral or humane.

Links to similar articles:

Poll: the majority of doctors oppose assisted suicide.

Canadian society of Palliative care physicians oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Rebranding killing and suicide: The ugly truth about euthanasia.

Quebec euthanasia law (Bill 52) is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.

Bloc MP Francine Lalonde has cancer

The CBC News, and other news agencies, reported yesterday that Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde has announced that she won't be running for re-election in the next federal election because she has bone cancer.

Lalonde successfully battled bone cancer a few years ago. She has reported that the cancer is spreading rapidly.

We hope that the cancer will once again go into remission and Lalonde will receive the best medical care.

As for the coverage by the CBC, they stated that:

Lalonde made a name for herself in politics after introducing a private member's bill that would allow euthanasia and assisted suicide under strict conditions.

Bill C-384 was defeated 228-59 in a vote earlier this year.

Strict conditions?
- The fact is that Bill C-384 would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with mental or physical pain,
- You did not have to be terminally ill and it didn't define terminal illness.
- It was not limited to Canadian citizens.
- It defined competent as "appearing to be lucid."
- and much more.

The CBC would do us a great service by reporting the news and not trying to redefine the news.

Link to the CBC news article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/13/bloc-mp-francine-lalonde.html

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Responds to Francine Lalonde’s National Post Article

Today, Francine Lalonde published an article in the National Post promoting her private members bill, Bill C-384, which would legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide for those 18 years and older.

Lalonde’s article omits the topic of elder abuse and misrepresents the bill’s provisions.

In Canada, elder abuse is a widespread problem, which is often unreported. Older persons with money are a prime target with family members the usual perpetrators. See e.g. Canada’s official website at: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt3col@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&lang=eng&geo=169&cid=161

Perpetrators can also be strangers, for example, Melissa Friedrich, Canada's “Internet Black Widow.”

Contrary to Lalonde’s article, C-384 lacks basic protections for patients. For example, the patient is not required to be lucid at the time of application. A patient must only “appear” to be lucid. C-384 also allows an heir, who will benefit from the death, to serve as power of attorney to approve the euthanasia or assisted suicide. The death is also not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons. Without witnesses, the opportunity is created for someone else to administer the lethal agent to the patient without the patient’s consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse. For more detailed information, see memo to parliament: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/1016_001.pdf

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
1-877-439-3348
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca

Margaret Dore, Lawyer
www.margaretdore.com

To kill or not to kill?

George Webster, a clinical ethicist, Health Care Ethics Service, at St. Boniface General Hospital and CIHR member, wrote an article that was published in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 22, 2010.

Webster begins his article by making reference to the program - The Suicide Tourist that was recently aired on PBS. He then comments on Bill C-384, the bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Webster continues by explaining why some people support the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide and then he explains why others oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Webster looks at the issue in a fair and balanced manner. He is concerned about what is best for the country, for physicians and for patient care. Webster makes this conclusion:

What to do? I believe we can "care well" for the dying and terminally ill in our society without intentionally bringing about their deaths or assisting in their suicides. Often, those who gravitate toward euthanasia or assisted suicide do so because they fear they will lose control of decisions at the end of their lives. They may have witnessed family members dying with little control over decisions or they may have witnessed loved ones die in great pain.

Via their words and actions, health-care professionals and health-care organizations must assure patients and families they will be involved in a meaningful way with decisions about their care. Patients must be assured they will not be abandoned, left to die in isolation and/or excluded from important choices at the end of life.

In our time, no one need die in this way. Fear of loss of control and fear of a painful, protracted dying process are basic issues for all in this debate. However, all too often in the discussion of assisted suicide the public is presented with two scenarios -- a death characterized by loss of control and unrelieved pain and suffering or a peaceful, calm death. This is, quite simply, a crude and simplistic caricature.

Assisting the suicide of those in our community who are dying and/or others who may be struggling with mental anguish eliminates tragedy and suffering by eliminating the sufferer. Rather than being an expression of mercy or respect, communal endorsement of euthanasia and assisted suicide is the ultimate abandonment of the person.

Palliative care is a viable alternative to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The philosophy of palliative care encourages each patient to live to the fullest as they confront their own unique dying. Palliative care demonstrates death is a communal event and not simply a private matter. Those working in palliative care bring specialized skills to respond to pain, psychological distress and the spiritual needs of patients and their families.

If we are to truly honour and respect those among us who are dying, or those whose hold on life is weakened by disease or suffering, then we must keep company with these people and respond in concrete ways that communicate faithfulness and attentiveness.

Link to the article at: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/to-kill-or-not-to-kill-88801087.html

Bill C-384 received its first-hour of debate on March 16th (again)

The first-hour of debate (again) on Bill C-384, the bill that is sponsored by Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada took place, yesterday on March 16, 2010.

Bill C-384 was introduced at first-reading on May 13, 2009. It had its first-hour of debate on October 2, 2009 and it was scheduled for its second-hour of debate for November 16, 2009. Lalonde then traded-backwards in the order of precedence three times to delay the second-hour of debate and vote on Bill C-384. Then Prime-Minister Harper prorogued parliament. Since C-384 had not been voted-on at second reading, therefore prorogation returned C-384 to requiring a first and second-hour of debate before it could be voted-on at Second Reading.

Lalonde’s strategy: Create confusion concerning Bill C-384, euthanasia and assisted suicide and pressure Members of Parliament (MP) to pass the bill at second reading and amendment it in committee.

Lalonde began her speech in parliament by annunciating her strategy to pressure MP’s to support Bill C-384 at second-reading and to amend it in committee. Lalonde stated:

“I think that studying my bill in committee and passing it after consideration and amendments would at last rid us of the criminal nature of physician-assisted dying by euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

Bill C-384 is fatally flawed. There is nothing redeeming or worth amending in the bill.

*Bill C-384 legalizes lethal injection for people who suffer chronic physical and mental pain even when the condition is treatable.

*Bill C-384 is not limited to competent people. It legalizes lethal injection for people who “appear to be lucid”. You are not required to be lucid only to appear to be lucid.

Lalonde then begins her second strategy which is to create confusion about what euthanasia and assisted suicide is and what Bill C-384 does. Lalonde states:

“In a context where any act aimed at shortening life is considered murder punishable by criminal sanctions, it is rather difficult to have an open and frank discussion on all the care that would be appropriate at the end of life.”

“The Canadian legal framework, the Criminal Code, stipulates that any action to end another person’s life constitutes murder and is therefore subject to criminal sanctions.”

Lalonde’s comments are false and misleading.

Euthanasia is when a person (usually a physician) directly and intentionally causes the death of another person, based on suffering. Euthanasia is usually done by lethal injection.

Assisted Suicide is when a person aids, abets or counsels a person to commit suicide. Assisted suicide is usually done by writing a prescription for a lethal dose.

Lalonde's statements relate to the false comments by the Quebec College of Physicians who argue that euthanasia needs to be legalized to protect doctors who use sedation techniques and large doses of morphine, acts that they claim are the same as euthanasia.

The proper use of morphine and other analgesics is not euthanasia. The proper use of analgesics will relieve a person of pain and if the rare and unintended consequence is the death of the person, then it is clearly not euthanasia but rather the reality that death is a natural end for the human person. The abuse of the use of analgesics may be euthanasia and should never be confused with the effective and proper use of morphine.

The proper use of sedation techniques are not euthanasia, but rather a good form of palliative care. When a person is properly sedated to relieve them of pain, this is not euthanasia, but the abuse of the use of sedation techniques may be euthanasia.

I am concerned that false and misleading comments concerning the proper use of sedation and analgesics to effectively control pain may lead some physicians to hesitate from using large doses of analgesics or hesitate from sedating a person who is experiencing painful symptoms. This would be a tragic.

Lalonde also asked the question: “What will the parliament of Canada do?” if the Quebec government commission that is seeking information on euthanasia and assisted suicide, introduces a motion in the Quebec legislature to legalize euthanasia?

Lalonde promotes the myth that her bill is strict and limited. She stated:

“My bill has a specific objective. It deals only with people capable of making decisions for themselves who are living in conditions of suffering that cannot be alleviated.“

“My bill is specific and limited”

Bill C-384 is wide open and uncontrollable.

It allows euthanasia (lethal injection) and assisted suicide (lethal prescription) for people who are experiencing physical or mental pain or terminally ill, who have accepted or rejected effective treatments, and who appear to be lucid.

Bill C-384 is not limited to terminally ill people. It allows euthanasia for someone who is experiencing chronic physical or mental pain, who have rejected effective treatment, even if that effective treatment was for chronic depression, and who appear to be lucid.

Bill C-384 would allow someone who lives with treatable chronic depression to be killed by lethal injection.

This is a bill that specifically targets people with disabilities who live with chronic conditions.

C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse. A person only needs to appear to be lucid and the bill does not require a witness at the time of death to ensure that the person who died, actually consented.

Lalonde is creating confusion about what euthanasia and assisted suicide is and what Bill C-384 does. She is pressuring MP’s to vote for Bill C-384 at second reading, even if they don’t actually support the bill, to allow the bill to be debated and amended in the justice committee.

Lalonde is constantly repeating a lie with the hope that the lie becomes accepted as a fact.

Bill C-384 needs to be defeated at second reading. Tell your MP to vote against Bill C-384.

When is euthanasia justified?

The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, published an excellent article by Margaret Somerville yesterday.

The article asks the rhetorical question, When is euthanasia justified?

Somerville answers the question with the reality of the practice of euthanasia in other jurisdictions.

Somerville stated:
Francine Lalonde's private member's bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide will be back in Parliament tomorrow.

For millennia, euthanasia (a word I use to include assisted suicide) has been considered morally and legally unjustifiable. People who oppose euthanasia still believe it's inherently wrong – it can't be morally justified and even compassionate motives don't make it ethically acceptable.

But what are the attitudes of pro-euthanasia advocates regarding whether its use needs to be justified, were it to be legalized? And, if justifications are required, what are they?

People who would accept euthanasia, but only in some circumstances, usually limit its access to people who are terminally ill, in serious unrelievable pain and suffering, and require that euthanasia be used as a last resort. These limitations show these people believe each case of euthanasia needs moral justification to be ethically acceptable.

But although the need for euthanasia to relieve pain and suffering is the justification given, and the one the public accepts in supporting its legalization, research shows that dying people request euthanasia far more frequently because of fear of social isolation and of being a burden on others, than pain. So, should avoiding loneliness or being a burden count as a sufficient justification?

Recently, some pro-euthanasia advocates have gone further, arguing that respect for people's rights to autonomy and self-determination means competent adults have a right to die at a time of their choosing, and the state has no right to prevent them from doing so. In other words, if euthanasia were legalized, the state has no right to require a justification for its use by competent, freely consenting adults.

For example, they believe an elderly couple, where the husband is seriously ill and the wife healthy, should be allowed to carry out their suicide pact. As Ruth von Fuchs, head of the Right to Die Society of Canada, stated, “life is not an obligation.” But although Ms. von Fuchs thought the wife should have an unfettered right to assisted suicide, she argued that it would allow her to avoid the suffering, grief and loneliness associated with losing her husband – that is, she articulated a justification.

We can see this same trend toward not requiring a justification – or, at least, nothing more than that's what a competent person over a certain age wants to do – in the Netherlands. Last month, a group of older Dutch academics and politicians launched a petition in support of assisted suicide for the over-70s who [ OMIT are] “consider their lives complete” and want to die. They quickly attracted more than 100,000 signatures, far more than needed to get the issue debated in parliament under citizens' initiative legislation.

And what about avoiding health-care costs as a justification? Although this question has largely been dodged – one could say “religiously” – by pro-euthanasia advocates, euthanasia could be used as a cost-saving measure, and is likely to be if legalized.

Half of the lifetime health-care costs of the average person are incurred in the last six months of the person's life. Euthanasia would be a way to implement a “reasonably well or dead” approach – sometimes referred to as “squaring the curve” of health decline at the end of life, so the person drops precipitously from being reasonably well to dead – which would avoid those costs.

The medical authority of the U.S. state of Oregon – where physician-assisted suicide is legal – seems to have adopted this approach. Shortly before he died this month, Montreal journalist Hugh Anderson wrote in The Gazette that Oregon “has acknowledged that when it turns down an application to cover the cost of an expensive new drug, it sends out simultaneously a reminder that the state's assisted suicide program is available at an affordable cost.” As Mr. Anderson noted, “What a great way to put a crimp in medical costs. Have the patients kill themselves when the cost of keeping us alive gets too high.”

The Netherlands' 30-year experience with euthanasia shows clearly the rapid expansion, in practice, of what is seen as an acceptable justification for euthanasia.

Initially, euthanasia was limited to terminally ill, competent adults, with unrelievable pain and suffering, who repeatedly asked for euthanasia and gave their informed consent to it. Now, none of those requirements necessarily applies, in some cases not even in theory and, in others, not in practice.

For instance, parents of severely disabled babies can request euthanasia for them, 12- to 16-year-olds can obtain euthanasia with parental consent and those over 16 can give their own consent. More than 500 deaths a year, where the adult was incompetent or consent not obtained, result from euthanasia. And late middle-aged men (a group at increased risk for suicide) may be using it as a substitute for suicide.

Indeed, one of the people responsible for shepherding through the legislation legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands recently admitted publicly that doing so had been a serious mistake, because, she said, once legalized, euthanasia cannot be controlled. In other words, justifications for it expand greatly, even to the extent that simply a personal preference “to be dead” will suffice.

Legalizing euthanasia causes death and dying to lose the moral context within which they must be viewed. Maintaining that moral context is crucial in light of an aging population and scarce and increasingly expensive health-care resources, which will present us with increasingly difficult ethical decisions.

Link to the article in the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/when-is-euthanasia-justified/article1499212/

Will Bill C-384 ever go to a vote?

Bill C-384, the bill that was introduced by the Bloc MP Francine Lalonde to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide will have its vote delayed again, but this time it is due to a move by Prime Minister Harper.

Prime Minister Harper has just received permission to prorogue parliament until after the Winter Olympic Games are finished. It has been announced that parliament will resume on Wednesday, March 3, 2010; with the budget being delivered on March 4

That means that Bill C-384 will receive its second hour of debate on March 12 or 15 (at the earliest) and be voted on March 17 or 24, depending on whether or not they take a March break (a break was scheduled on the previous parliamentary calendar between March 15 - 19).

Bill C-384 received its first hour of debate on October 2, 2009 and was scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on Nov 16th and go to a vote on November 18, 2009.

Lalonde has traded-backwards in the order of precedence 3 times to delay the second hour of debate and vote on her bill, probably because she knew it was going to be defeated.

Since the Conservative government appears to be setting up an election in May or June, will Lalonde find a way to trade-back again in the order of precedence and prevent C-384 from ever being voted on.

For more information about Bill C-384 go to: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Analysis-BillC384.htm

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca
Toll Free: 1-877-439-3348

Francine Lalonde delays second-hour of debate and vote on Bill C-384

Bill C-384 is the private members bill that was introduced by Bloc MP Francine Lalonde to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. C-384 was introduced on May 13, 2009, it received its first hour of debate on Oct 2, 2009 and it was scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on Nov 16 and to be voted-on Nov 18, 2009.

Lalonde is on the run. First she traded-back her date for the second hour of debate to Nov 19, then she traded-back the second hour of debate to Dec 1, and now she has traded-back the second hour of debate to Feb 2, 2010. It appears that Lalonde has noticed that her bill lacks support among Members of Parliament and that it will be defeated at second reading. When C-384 is defeated at second reading it will be officially defeated/dead.

For those who are wondering what Bill C-384 actually states, go to: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Analysis-BillC384.htm

We need to be clear about what C-384 actually does.
- C-384 legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide by amending sections 222 and 241 of the criminal code.
- C-384 legalizes euthanasia by giving medical practitioners the right to directly and intentionally cause the death of their patients.
- C-384 legalizes assisted suicide by giving medical practitioners the right to be directly and intentionally involved with causing the death of their patients.
- C-384 is not limited to terminally ill people. It allows medical practitioners to directly and intentionally cause the death of people who are suffering physical or mental pain.
- C-384 defines competency as "appearing to be lucid." Appearing to be lucid does not mean that a person is actually lucid.
- C-384 is not limited to Canadian Citizens.
- C-384 does not define terminal illness.
- C-384 directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable people who live with chronic physical or mental pain.
- C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse.
Bill C-384 is written in such wide language that you can drive a hearse through it.

Canada needs to care for its citizens not kill those who are vulnerable. Write a hand-written letter to your Member of Parliament today explaining why you oppose Bill C-384. Sample letters can be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/SampleLetters.htm

French parliament rejects Euthanasia

Parliamentarians in France recently rejected a protocol to legalize euthanasia in there country. The vote was 326 to 202.

It is anticipated that the Canadian parliament will soundly defeat Bill C-384, the bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, when it finally comes up for a vote.

C-384 was received its first hour of debate in the Canadian parliament on Oct 2, 2009 and was scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on Nov 16, 2009. Francine Lalonde who introduced C-384 then traded-back the date for the second hour of debate until Nov 19, 2009 and then again to Dec 1, 2009. Lalonde has now traded-back the second hour of debate to Feb 2, 2010. I think she is running scared knowing that C-384 will be soundly defeated.

The french parliament follows a consistent political reality that legislators will rarely legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide once they have had a chance to fully analyze the issue based on its merits and problems.

Legalizing euthanasia gives physicians the right to directly and intentionally cause the death of their patients.

Link to news article:
http://www.panorama.am/en/society/2009/11/25/french-parliament/

Join Steve Passmore's on Nov. 16 as he protests Bill C-384

Bill C-384 was introduced by Bloc MP Francine Lalonde on May 13, 2009 to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. This was her third attempt to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide with her previous two attempts dying on the order paper, without going to a vote, after elections were called.

On October 2, C-384 received its first hour of debate. C-384 is tentatively scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on Nov 16and it is tentatively scheduled to be voted-on at second reading on Nov 18.

Steve Passmore, a disability rights advocate who was born with cerebral palsy, will be protesting C-384 near the steops on parliament hill while it is being debated in the house on Monday November 16. His protest will go from 10:30 am to 12:30 (noon).

Passmore protested the first hour of debate of on October 2nd and is hoping that many people with disabilities and others will join his protest of C-384.

We expect that C-384 will be defeated by a significant margin. We are not resting. We need to continue putting pressure on MP’s in order to ensure that we strongly defeat C-384.

The first parliamentary debate reveals significant opposition to Bill C-384.

On Friday, October 2, 2009, Bill C-384 -- the private member's bill introduced by Francine Lalonde (BQ) to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada -- received its first hour of debate in the House of Commons.

Parliamentary procedure states that a private member's bill receives two hours of debate before being voted on at second reading. C-384 is tentatively scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on November 16, 2009.

Eight Members of Parliament spoke on C-384. Two spoke in favour - Francine Lalonde (BQ), Serge Cardin - (BQ); six opposed the bill - David Anderson (CPC), Hon John McKay (Lib), Jacques Gourde (CPC), Hon Marlene Jennings (Lib), Joe Comartin (NDP), Paul Szabo (Lib).

Francine Lalonde

Francine Lalonde (BQ) led off the debate, explaining how C-384 would work.

"… it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if ... the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than ten days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die."

Lalonde then spoke about the experience of legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in other jurisdictions including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.

Lalonde continued by focusing on the attitude of the Quebec College of Physicians that appears to be considering a change in their position on the issue. She also spoke about recent polls in Quebec that appear to indicate that the majority of Quebecers support her bill.

She then spoke about palliative care and she emphasized that there are cases when palliative care does not adequately relieve a person's suffering. She quoted a palliative care doctor who appears to support euthanasia.

She then challenged the recent article from a group of 100 physicians in Quebec who oppose C-384 and who oppose the possible change in position by the Quebec College of Physicians concerning euthanasia.

David Anderson

David Anderson (CPC) spoke against C-384, making three main points.

His first point was, "… we need to understand that allowing people to die is a far cry from causing their death."

His second point was, "She talked about the fact that choice exists in other countries. While that is true, many of those countries (Switzerland) have developed death tourism, so that people go there to die. That is not in line with what we want either the heritage or the future of this country to be about."

Anderson's final point was, "It is ironic that she claims that an association for palliative care champions euthanasia. Is this not a complete twisting of the commitment that so many palliative care providers across this country believe in? They believe they are doing good work. They do not believe in euthanasia."

Lalonde responded, "It is about determining whether or not we should, by changing the Criminal Code, allow doctors who so wish -- only those who wish to do so -- to medically end the life of someone who wants to die, who has made that choice, who is at the end of life and who is suffering. That is the only question."

Editor's Note: Lalonde admits that the change to the Criminal Code would allow doctors to end the life of someone. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has argued that C-384 is not about a person dying with dignity but rather giving the right to physicians to end a patient's life.

John McKay

John McKay (Lib) made two points.

The first was, "The essential core of this legislation is that it would engage society in the ending of a life. It would engage the doctor and it would engage us as a society."

His second point related to capital punishment. He spoke about how the justice system can make mistakes.

"I would request that the hon. member (Lalonde) respond to the inevitable, the absolute certainty that errors will be made and that therefore she and I and all the rest of us will bear that guilt."

Lalonde responded by speaking about the recent report from Belgium that stated that only people who have requested it and who are suffering are dying by euthanasia.

Jacques Gourde

Jacques Gourde (CPC) spoke against C-384. He was representing the government in his opposition to the bill. He said, "Bill C-384 is too broad in terms of its scope. Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide an exemption not only to the offence of assisted suicide, but also to the offence of murder. These amendments would represent a substantial change to the current state of the law on a matter that touches on life and death."

His second point was, "The proposed legalization of medical euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only apply to terminally-ill patients, but also to persons who suffer from severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. Therefore, under this bill, persons who suffer from depression could request that a doctor help them to commit suicide. They could also request that the doctor carry out the act itself that would cause their death."

His third point was concerning the lack of safeguards. "In this respect, Bill C-384 contains a number of vague and undefined terms that could lead to interpretation problems and, therefore, potentially to misunderstandings or abuses."

"For example, terms such as 'while appearing to be lucid', 'appropriate treatment', 'severe physical or mental pain', 'without any prospect of relief' have the potential to be interpreted very subjectively.'

"Under Bill C-384, the doctor who would assist in a suicide or terminate someone's life would only have to provide a copy of the diagnosis to the coroner after the fact. This bill would give a doctor the authority to terminate life on the apparent consent of the patient."

Gourde's next point was, "I know that other countries have struggled with this difficult issue over the years, both in their legislatures and in the courts. While some countries have amended their laws to permit physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, others have not supported such changes. In any event, regardless of what other countries have done, we have to consider what is right for our society."

He concluded by stating, "I would like to reiterate that I do not support this bill. … It raises a number of significant legal and policy concerns and, in my view, would not adequately protect human life. Bill C-384 would also have a major impact on current medical ethics and practice. Such substantial changes to the law should not be considered without extensive advance consultations."

Marlene Jennings

Marlene Jennings (Lib) spoke against the bill by first reading the letter from the Canadian Medical Association opposing C-384. She then argued that the government and previous governments have not followed through on the research studies that need to be done before Canada consider legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Joe Comartin

Joe Comartin, the NDP Justice Critic, was the next speaker to oppose C-384. His first argument was in relation to palliative care. He stated, "I want to quote from a statement made by Dr. Balfour Mount, whose name I think everybody in the country would recognize as being a leader in palliative care in Canada."

"Mount said he is profoundly against euthanasia because it is simply not needed …."

"What he was saying is that it is not needed in the kind of care he is able to provide and that he has provided for the better part of 30 years, as is the case in my community."

"We need to look at our system right now. … At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life."

"However, that is what it is about. It is about providing that system, and we are not doing it."

Comartin then spoke against the very concept of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. "I know there are disputes over this, but it is the analysis that I have brought to bear, and I think it is an accurate one. In spite of how we build that system, and I say that about the legislation my colleague has brought here, that is not what actually happens. Should we make the mistake of passing this kind of legislation, we are in effect giving our approval to doctors who are willing to do this, to family members who want it and to those individuals who are still capable of making a decision. They will simply figure out ways of working around the legislation."

He concluded by saying, "I think we do need a fuller debate on this, but not in this context. It has to be in the context of people living out their natural lives, and what we, as a society and legislators, have to do to ensure that can happen."

Editor's Note: In other words, Comartin says that we need to discuss how people live out their natural life before we discuss how they die.

Serge Cardin

The next speaker was Serge Cardin BQ who supported C-384. He spoke about suffering and the death of his father. He then challenged people who oppose euthanasia based on a faith perspective, by stating, "I can say that in ancient times, the Greeks and the Romans were able to bring the issue of suicide out into the open and ensure that it was part of public discourse and debate. That was in ancient times. They decided to discuss it honestly and openly, to debate the matter. Intolerance of suicide began to take root in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and was heightened under the influence of Christianity. Naturally we do not wish to go against people's beliefs."

Cardin warned the Members of Parliament that if they didn't deal with the issue, more cases would go before the courts, leading to a judicial decision.

He concluded by stating, "I am not trying to convince the members to say yes so that this bill becomes law tomorrow morning. What I am trying to do is convince them to consider, discuss, debate, and improve this bill. In the end, it is not up to us to choose. It is up to the person to say lucidly that, in the event something should happen, they want to have control over their life and, ideally, their death as well.

Editor's Note: Cardin's concluding remarks follow the same point of view of the euthanasia lobby in Canada who have been asking Members of Parliament to vote in favour of C-384 in order to allow it to receive a national debate.

Paul Szabo

The final speech on C-384 was by Paul Szabo (Lib) who spoke against the bill, making two key points.

His first point was related to the nine years he served on the board of the Mississauga hospital. "The issues of informed consent and mental competency, whether the person had all the medical information, or were aware of all the options or if there was coercion by family members or friends, are important issues to take into consideration."

His second point was about what euthanasia actually is. "The bill goes under the moniker of right to die with dignity, but the amendment to the Criminal Code would give a person the right to terminate a life before natural death. It would not give the right to die with dignity to someone. It would give the right of someone to take a life. That is a subtle difference."

He concluded by saying, "I hope as many members as possible will get an opportunity to address this. Palliative care workers are concerned about this. Organizations and hospices are doing their very best to give the best possible care in terrible situations. Disabled in our society are obviously concerned about whether their lives are at risk because someone decides they do not live in dignity."

Editor's Note: The first hour of debate for C-384 went very well. For us to strongly defeat the bill we will need more supporters to write letters, send post-cards, or meet with their MP. Please continue the work.

People with disabilities protest Bill C-384

Mark Warawa MP with
Steve Passmore

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On Friday October 2, 2009; Steve Passmore, a man who was born with Cerebral Palsy arrived at Parliament Hill at 12:30 pm to protest Bill C-384. Passmore was innundated by the media, including the CBC and many other reporters representing newspapers and news outlets in Canada. Mark Warawa MP came over to greet Passmore and to assure him that he will be voting against Bill C-384 because the bill threatens the lives of people with disabilities.

Even though the media interviewed Steve Passmore -  why did they completely black-out covering the Bill C-384 debate and the protest by Steve Passmore, a man with a life-long disability?

I am convinced that since the debate in parliament didn't go well for Bloc MP Francine Lalonde and since Steve Passmore understands the issue very well and has experience speaking about euthanasia. The media probably ignored Steve Passmore's message because they would rather report on a  person with a sad and emotionally moving story who supports euthanasia so they can make that story the issue.

The story line concerning the lack of support for Lalonde's third attempt to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and the effective comments by Passmore doesn't fit within the framework that the media wants for Canadians.

I wish the media would honestly present the news rather than attempting to create news, and that is why I think that Passmore and Lalonde experienced a media blackout.

The following is the media release from Thursday October 1, 2009.

LONDON, ON, Oct. 1 /CNW/ - Steve Passmore, a person with a disability, will voice his opposition to Bill C-384 - the bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide - and that represents a threat to persons with disabilities.

Mr. Passmore will be available for media interviews near the front steps of Parliament hill, Ottawa, from 12:30 - 3 pm on Friday, October 2.

His protest is based on the fact that Bill C-384 directly threatens his life and the lives of people with disabilities.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a broadly based network of groups and individuals working to create an effective social barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities recognize that Bill C-384 directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities.

A dance of death

By Jean Echlin, Special to The Windsor Star - September 22, 2009

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Guest+column+dance+death/2018925/story.html

The Carillon concerts from the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill may soon ring out with Saint-Saens' symphonic poem Danse Macabre (Dance of Death). Bloc MP Francine Lalonde has introduced her third private member's bill (C-384) to allow legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Discussion and voting will take place this fall.

Scientific advances give us longer life and better quality of life as we age, providing our society a "hint of immortality." Meanwhile, the cults of death, Dying with Dignity and Compassion & Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) are pushing their agenda of death for either mental or physical discomfort/suffering, creating a confusing paradox. The opportunity to live longer is offset by what will become an imposed duty to die sooner.

Persons at highest risk will be the elderly, especially women 55 and older (misogyny still exists) and more elderly men due to the issues of ageism and elder abuse; those with mental or physical disabilities, especially those suffering depression with suicidal ideation; partners in scenarios of domestic violence; babies and children born with disabilities and birth anomalies; persons who are poor and disenfranchised; members of minority groups and individuals unable to speak for themselves.

Lalonde's bill states that "medical practitioners" will perform the death procedures. We have no right to ask our professional caregivers to provide us with death. Neither should they ever feel obliged or forced to comply with this request that goes against our essential humanity.

How would anyone know if the person coming into their hospital room with needle and syringe was intent on curing or killing?

This would destroy the trust relationship between patients, families, health care providers and institutions.

Programs of hospice/palliative care provide real hope for those with life-threatening or terminal disease. The cornerstone of excellence in these programs is the management of pain and other distressing symptoms (physical, psycho-spiritual and social). Quality end-of-life care is a priority. Unfortunately only 15 to 20 per cent of Canadians can access this care. Before any discussion of euthanasia or assisted suicide, all Canadians, regardless of age or disease, must have access to palliative care. To do otherwise simply provides a means of health care cost containment.

Recently in Oregon, Barbara Wagner, a 54 year old woman, was denied treatment for lung cancer because of cost, but was offered assisted suicide ($75) by the Oregon department of health. Barbara wanted to live. She has since died.

According to Canadian medical ethicist Margaret Somerville, "The proper goal of medicine and physicians is to kill pain. It is not their role to kill a patient with pain -- to become society's executioners -- which is what euthanasia entails, no matter how merciful our reasons. Physicians (and nurses added) must provide adequate pain relief. Leaving a person in pain is really 'torture by wilful omission."

Too often people believe that morphine is killing the patient when in fact the underlying disease causes death. Careful titration of opioids is not euthanasia.

Mark Pickup, another outstanding Canadian author, who suffers late stage multiple sclerosis (MS), writes: "There will always be suicidal people, but a civilized society does not acquiesce to the darkness of the abyss by participating in anyone's suicide. By definition, civilized people have rejected the barbarism of killing their weak and sick. Euthanasia is cheap compassion. It requires so little of us. It is a form of murder masquerading as mercy."

The five major world religions reject killing of another. Citing from the Judeo-Christian and Islamic world views comes the command: "You shall not kill," (Exodus 20:13), "Do not take life," (Qu'ran 17:33).

In general, both Hinduism and Buddhism oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia as acts of destroying life and disrupting the cycle of life and death. These words of life are wisdom.

Jean Echlin RN, MSN, is a nursing consultant, palliative care, in Windsor. Jean was awarded the Dorothy Lea award for excellence in palliative care by the Ontario Hospice Palliative Care Association in 2004.

An analysis of Bill C-384: An act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)

Summary Bill C-384:

• Bill C-384 would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.
(For the purpose of the analysis, euthanasia and assisted suicide will be referred to as “intended death”.)
• Bill C-384 does not restrict intended death to Canadian citizens. (The bill could make Canada a destination for Suicide Tourists and Suicide Clinics).
• The person would need to be at least 18 years old.
• The person may refuse appropriate treatments and still die by an intended death. (A medical practitioner cannot determine that there is no prospect of relief from pain if the person refuses appropriate treatments).
• Bill C-384 allows intended death for people who experience depression or other chronic mental conditions.
• Bill C-384 does not limit intended death to the terminally ill and it does not define terminal illness.
• Bill C-384 measures competency based on “appearing to be lucid”. The term “appearing to be lucid” does not assure that the person is actually lucid.
• Bill C-384 would allows intended death for incompetent people stated while competent their intentions.
• The language of the bill is not clear whether medical practitioners are the only persons who can intend the death of an incompetent person.
• Bill C-384 would requires at least two medical practitioners to confirm the diagnosis in writing. (The bill does not prohibit doctor shopping).
• Bill C-384 would require that all requests for intended death be made free of duress. (This is an illusion. No assurances are built into the bill)
• Bill C-384 would require the medical practitioner to inform the person of all alternatives. (There is no requirement to try effective treatments).
• Bill C-384 would assure that the person may revoke their request at any time. (This is an illusion. This bill allows for the intended death of incompetent people.)
• Bill C-384 would require the medical practitioner to provide confirmation of the diagnosis to the coroner. This is a form of after-the-fact reporting. The medical practitioner is only required to a file a report after the person has died. This is only a safeguard for the medical practitioner and not the person who is dead.
• The definition of medical practitioner is not limited to a physician.

The complete analysis of Bill C-384:
On May 13, 2009 Francine Lalonde MP (BQ - La Pointe-de-l’Île) introduced Bill C-384: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).

In June 2008 Lalonde introduced Bill C-562 and in June 2005 Lalonde introduced Bill C-407. Bill C-384 is identical to Bill C-562 while Bill C-407 was very similar.

Lalonde’s husband Guy Lemarche is the communications director of the euthanasia lobby group - Association Québécoise pour la Droit de Mourir dans la Dignité.

Bill C-384 acts by amending subsections 222(7) and subsection 241(2) of the Criminal Code.

Section 222 is the homicide provision within the criminal code. Bill C-384 legalizes euthanasia by amending subsection 222(7) of the Criminal Code.

Euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person’s suffering, where the act is the cause of death. (Of Life and Death - 1995)

Section 241 is the assisted suicide provision within the criminal code. Bill C-384 legalizes assisted suicide by amending subsection 241(2) of the criminal code.

Assisted suicide is the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means or both. (Of Life and Death - 1995)

Bill C-384 amends the Criminal Code by adding to subsections 222(7) and 241(2) exceptions whereby the law is circumvented.

• Bill C-384 states that the person must be at least eighteen years old. This “safeguard” may be unconstitutional because it limits what is determined by the bill to be appropriate medical treatment only based on the age of the person. Since the constitution recognizes that everyone is equal under the law, therefore it may be unconstitutional to limit the rights of individuals, based on age, without good reason.

• Bill C-384 states that the person is eligible: “after trying or expressly refusing the appropriate treatments available that they continue to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief.”

A person is eligible if they experience severe physical pain without any prospect of relief.

Physical and mental pain can always be mitigated. Modern palliative care has substantially improved over the past 30 years. Medicine has not solved every concern with pain and symptom management, but the concept of experiencing physical pain without any prospect of relief is a sign of a patient who has not been appropriately cared for and not a reason for intended death.

Bill C-384 directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities and/or people with chronic conditions. People with disabilities and chronic conditions are often perceived as being without any prospect of relief. These same people will usually view their life experience differently from those who are making judgement of their quality of life.

A person is eligible if they experience severe mental pain without any prospect of relief.

Chronic depression and mental pain is always treatable. Further, one must question the concept of intending the death of a person who experiences chronic depression or mental pain because you can never be sure that the person is competent to consent. Remember the bill states you must only “appear to be lucid.”

Bill C-384 does not require medical practitioners refer people with mental pain to a specialist.

Since a person is eligible if they have refused appropriate treatments that are available. How can a medical practitioner determine that the mental pain has no prospect of relief if the person can refuse appropriate treatments?

• The bill states that the person is eligible if: they suffer from a terminal illness. Bill C-384 does not define terminal illness.

Many people live with a terminal illness but are not actively dying. My step-father died 28 months after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months to live.

Bill C-384 would have qualified my step-father for an intended death when he was diagnosed.

• Bill C-384 states that the person is eligible if: “the person has provided a medical practitioner, while appearing to be lucid, with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person’s free and informed consent to opt to die.”

The assumption that someone is competent when they “appear to be lucid” is questionable at best. To appear to be lucid cannot be considered an appropriate measure for competency. In other words, Bill C-384 would allow an intended death upon someone who may not actually be competent.

The safeguard related to making two written requests more than 10 days apart is to prove the lasting intent of the person. This safeguard is an illusion because the person who makes the request only needs to “appear to be lucid”.

• Bill C-384 states that if: “the person has designated in writing with free and informed consent, before two witnesses with no personal interest in the death of the person, another person to act on his or her behalf with any medical practitioner when the person does not appear to be lucid”.

This means that a person can have an intended death if they have made the request in a valid advanced directive.

It is unclear whether the person who does the act of intended death of the incompetent person must be a medical practitioner. The bill states that “another person can act on his or her behalf with any medical practitioner when the person does not appear to be lucid.” Because the bill states that another person can act on his or her behalf with any medical practitioner, therefore it is unclear whether or not that means that the act referred to is the intended death or consenting to the intended death.

• Bill C-384 requires that written confirmation of the diagnosis has been received from at least two medical practitioners. The bill does not preclude the practice of doctor shopping. In the state of Oregon, people who are denied assisted suicide from one doctor will be referred to another doctor by Compassion & Choices. In 2008, 53 of the 60 assisted suicide deaths in Oregon were facilitated by the lobby group Compassion & Choices.

• Bill C-384 requires “the medical practitioner to assure that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the written requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide were made under duress or while a person was not lucid.”

This safeguard is designed to guarantee competency. This safeguard is an illusion because the person making the request only needs to “appear to be lucid”.

• Bill C-384 requires that “the medical practitioner has informed the person of the consequences of the request for euthanasia or assisted suicide and of the alternatives that are available to the person.”

This supposed safeguard is designed to guarantee that the person is aware of the available options. This safeguard is an illusion because the person is not required to try effective treatments and there is no requirement to refer the person to a palliative care specialist.

• Bill C-384 requires “the medical practitioner to act in the manner indicated by the person and that the person may revoke their request at any time.”

This simply means that a person may change their mind at any time. This supposed safeguard is an illusion because the bill allows for an intended death after the person is deemed incompetent, as long as the person had requested an intended death while being competent.

• Bill C-384 requires “the medial practitioner to provide the coroner with a copy of the written confirmations of the diagnosis that were received from at least two medical practitioners.”

This is a common “after-the-fact” reporting system that exists in other jurisdictions where they have legalized an intended death. After-the-fact reporting is not a safeguard because the person has already died, it only offers protection for the medical practitioner.

• Bill C-384 defines medical practitioner as a duly qualified person by provincial law to practice medicine. The definition of medical practitioner is not limited to a physician.

Final comments:

• Society cannot legislate autonomy and choice in relation to acts that intentionally and directly cause death. No safeguard will ever protect vulnerable people from the subtle pressure to “choose” death.
Legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is always wrong because:
• It directly and intentionally threatens the lives of the most vulnerable members of society. The lives of people with disabilities and chronic conditions, people who live with depression and mental illness, and others are directly threatened by euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• It establishes euthanasia and assisted suicide as a treatment option for problems that are properly solved by effective and compassionate medical care.
• It changes the trust relationship between the medical practitioner and the patient.

Canadians need to tell their member of parliament to vote against Bill C-384 because it promotes a concept of choice and autonomy which is based on false principles and safeguards that are simply an illusion.

Misplaced compassion can lead to merciless killing

Jakki Jeffs has written an excellent article that essentially connects the historical and philosophical consequences of euthanasia and connects them to the current cultural pressures that have created a push for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. This is an article that is worth reading.

Text of the article that was published in the Guelph (Ontario) Mercury on February 23, 2009 by Jakki Jeffs:

I believe it appropriate to begin this column with the words of Dr. Leo Alexander, who served with the office of the Chief Counsel for War Crimes, in Nuremberg.

"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first, were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick.

"Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedge-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the non-rehabilitable sick."

In 1985, Alexander remarked that America was becoming a mirror of Germany in that the "barriers to killing are coming down."

Here in Canada, the barriers against killing are also coming down. Since 1991, no less than five private member's bills have been introduced at the federal level, each wishing to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in Canada.

Francine Lalonde, MP for La Pointe-de- l'Ile, is the author of the two most recent attempts and has given notice to Parliament of her plans to introduce another bill regarding "the right to die with dignity."

Lalonde's last effort would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering from chronic physical or mental pain; for people suffering from, but not limited to, terminal illness.

The proposed law was not limited to Canadian citizens, which could have made Canada the second most popular country for "suicide tourists."

Her bill did not even require that a person attempt to access effective treatment first, neither did it limit the option to "competent" patients -- leaving room for third-party assisted suicide consent. It actually appeared to allow euthanasia by someone other than a doctor.

These bills, including ones introduced at the Ontario provincial level addressing "natural death," show the subtle shift in attitude by medical professionals and the public regarding the non-rehabilitable sick.

In the Library of Parliament, Current Issue review 91-91E Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, it notes that in the past, the tolerance for suicide developed from a disdain for weakness, illness and the inability to contribute to society.

Is this happening again today?

The growing numbers of chronic diseases -- experienced as people live longer; the increasing costs of health care expense; the refusal to prosecute or convict; and the war cry of "choice" have all tempered our Canadian society into the belief that the cold-blooded murder of disabled or dying persons can actually be compassionate or merciful.

I know from personal experience with my mother that dignity is not upheld by abandonment of the vulnerable to those who would kill them, nor by hiding behind our own fear of disability, illness or death.

Neither is it upheld by denying our own prejudice toward those who communicate differently, whose methods of mobility is alien to us or whose body might be missing some fundamental elements we consider essential.

Dignity is never upheld when we forgo the sacrosanct nature of human life by accepting that there is life unworthy to be lived. We must know where this path will lead. The Nazi experiment showed us that misplaced compassion leads to merciless killing.

Human dignity requires our presence, our service and our commitment to walk with and lament the loss.

We hear the plea that begs us to help, to make sense of, relieve and share the suffering.

I pray that Canadians will reject Lalonde's latest "Parliamentary Act of Abandonment" and continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the dying, disabled and sick. In solidarity with them until the lament of life has come to completion.

Jakki Jeffs is a member of the Mercury's Community Editorial Board.

Link to the article in the Guelph Mercury:
http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/443885

Francine Lalonde to introduce bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada

Francine Lalonde

The other day I sent out an alert stating:

BQ MP Francine Lalonde gave notice on Thursday Feb. 11 that she will be introducing a Private Members Bill to legalize assisted suicide. Bills require at least 2 days notice before they are officially introduced.)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3666245&File=11

February 11, 2009 — Ms. Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île) — Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)".

I was quoted by Lifesite News in this way:

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Lalonde's most recent attempt, saying, "We are very concerned about the bill.

"Our primary concern," he said, "is that euthanasia and assisted suicide directly threatens the lives of the most vulnerable in society. We should not be focused on how to take the lives of the vulnerable but rather how we should be caring for them.

"To legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide represents the right of one person to take the life of another person. Our society should not be going there."

As soon as the bill is available we will publish a commentary on it.