Showing posts with label Jean Echlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jean Echlin. Show all posts

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Euthanasia Symposium 2016 - October 29, 2016 - Resisting euthanasia and assisted suicide.



The EPC 2016 Euthanasia Symposium is Saturday October 29, 2016 at the Best Western Waterfront Hotel - 277 Riverside Rd West Windsor Ontario (next to the Windsor/Detroit tunnel). Book your hotel room for $139 by calling the Best Western at: 519-973-5555.

The Symposium runs from 9 am to 5 pm and  is followed by a dinner at 6 pm to honor Jean Echlin, our President.

The Symposium registration is $50. 
The cost to attend the dinner is $50. 
The cost to attend the Symposium and the dinner is $90.

Register for the Symposium and dinner by calling the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca or register by paypal or credit card (link).

Download the registration form here: 2016 Euthanasia Symposium Order Form.

Jean Echlin
EPC President
The dinner to honor Jean Echlin, EPC President is at 6 pm at the Giovanni Caboto club - 2175 Parent Ave Windsor (Da Vinci room). Jean is a past director of the Hospice of Windsor, a past winner of the Dorothy Ley award for excellence in palliative care in Ontario and the founding VP of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Speakers include:
  • Catherine Glenn Foster - EPC USA director and lawyer. Catherine has submitted briefs in assisted suicide court cases throughout the US. 
  • Nancy Elliott – Chair – EPC USA – Opposing assisted suicide. Talking points.
  • Dr Kathy Pfaff Faculty of nursing, University of Windsor (Ethics and Conscience rights).
  • Kevin Dunn (Dunn Media) The Euthanasia Deception - building a social movement.
  • Diane Coleman – President, Not Dead Yet. A leading disability rights group world-wide.
  • Amy Hasbrouck - Director and Founder of Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet.
  • Aubert Martin - Director of Vivre dans la dignité in Québec.
  • Alex Schadenberg Executive Director – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Resisting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Jean Echlin: Letter to the Minister of Justice on euthanasia.

Jean Echlin RN, MScN
As a nurse consultant for 36 years in palliative care & gerontology I believe that hospice palliative care for every Canadian must be the priority. 

How dare we ask our doctors and nurses to put patients to death when a safer option exists. Healthcare providers must never assume the role of killers or refer to another who will provide the "death management." Trust and legal issues will make more problems for our sick and elderly. 


Abuse of the elderly and "copycat" suicides will increase. If economics are driving this movement and if we are honest cost-savings will be an outcome, we are a society bereft of moral and ethical values. 


Just study the statistics from the Netherlands, especially Belgium and you will understand the fatal results of this death promotion. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that in 2013, more than 1000 deaths were hastened without explicit request and more than 2800 died by euthanasia in Belgium. Does that promote a feeling of safety and security when we require acute or chronic care? Certainly many will fear institutional admission when the future reveals the magnitude of the coming "death tsunami." 


I fear that the "true north strong and free" is no longer a democracy if those who help us get cures and stay well are also denied their conscience rights. Please think how you would feel if society (government) stripped you of your rights and freedoms under our Canadian Charter? Would you quietly acquiesce or demand fair treatment under your Charter Rights? Please consider these thoughts. 


Thank you.

Jean Echlin RN, MScN
President - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Hospice and Hospital will not participate in euthanasia.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The recent report of the federal government's Special Committee on Assisted Dying stated (recommendation 11) that every publicly funded healthcare institution should be required to allow assisted death on its premises.

On March 5, the Windsor Star published an article by Brian Cross concerning Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital and the Hospice of Windsor and Essex County, since both institutions oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Carol Derbyshire the CEO of the Hospice of Windsor stated that their philosophy of ca supports:

respect for the dignity and sanctity of human life,” and ... that it’s (assisted death) not part of palliative care.
Janice Kaffer, the CEO of Hotel Dieu, that also operate a hospice, stated:
As a faith-based Catholic hospital, it does not believe it should participate in physician-assisted suicide.
Jean Echlin
Jean Echlin who is the President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and a registered nurse who was instrumental in founding the Hospice of Windsor clinical and volunteer programs and recently co-authored a book titled: It's not that simple told the Windsor Star:

most Canadians don’t understand how dignified death can be when pain and symptoms are well managed. She fears the push for assisted suicide is being driven by a desire to control health costs. Little consideration is given to the “death squads,” the doctors and nurses expected to deliver the deadly drugs,
Dr Brad Burke
While Dr Brad Burke, a physical rehabilitation expert told the Windsor star:

Whether I’m the executioner or I’m made to to refer someone to an executioner, I feel I’m still responsible,”
Burke is concerned that the Ontario College of Physicians would revoke his medical license if he refuses to kill his patients. The Windsor Star stated:
He worries that if he follows his conscience he may contravene the rules of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and end up losing his licence.
The Canadian Medical Association recently urged the federal government to respect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.

Healthcare professionals and institutions must not be forced to participate in killing their patients. If Canada imposes euthanasia upon the nation, there needs to be "safe havens" where people can go and not be pressured to die by lethal injection.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Code Black: Québec Euthanasia - Kill and Conceal

By Jean Echlin 
President - Euthanasa Prevention Coalition

Quebec’s euthanasia experiment that was scheduled to begin on December 10, 2015 is the only law in the world which attempts to coerce physicians and palliative programs into providing euthanasia. Thankfully, a Québec Superior Court Justice prevented the launch of euthanasia in Québec based on its conflict with the federal Criminal Code

The methods used by the Quebec government and the Quebec College of Physicians are bullying, threatening and abusive to doctors and agencies providing palliative care. These words come from a report that was written after the recent “Euthanasia Symposium: Theory and Reality about Euthanasia” held in Montreal October 31, 2015, sponsored by The Physicians’ Alliance Against Euthanasia; Living with Dignity network and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Included in the report:
  • Physicians around the world have always rejected euthanasia as a public safety hazard driving people to throw away years of their lives.
  • It provides caregivers and heirs with enormous power. The illusion of control will erode medical diligence in the care of people chronically disabled and acutely disabled by illness. 
  • Suffering is feared by most people at the end-of-life. We must find less dangerous options to constant availability of “death on demand.” For the small minority of patients for whom other options are not completely effective, palliative sedation can answer all symptom control problems.
The existing 29 palliative care centres in Quebec said NO to medically assisted death. The University of Montreal Hospitals (CHUM) stated that euthanasia will not be provided in its’ palliative care department.

Following refusals to euthanize by doctors and palliative care agencies, Dr Gaétan Barrette, the Québec Minister of Health and Social Services suggested that the government would cut subsidies to all palliative care centres in Quebec after all decided not to offer euthanasia.

The most significant feature is that the Quebec College of Physicians “Practice guidelines for medical aid in dying” orders the doctors to falsify the cause of death on the official death certificate required by the Public Health Act, for patients who die by euthanasia called “medical aid in dying” (MAD). Instead doctors must write the disease/condition which justified the MAD. This runs contrary to the Public Health Act Regulations that stipulates “the cause of death must be indicated in the most accurate manner possible.” This practice constitutes a breach of ethics and will lead to serious abuse and distort official statistics on actual causes of death in Quebec.

Euthanasia is homicide not medical care. We must listen to the majority of physicians and our hospice palliative care programs. We can ill afford to lose either.

Jean Echlin, RN, MScN
Nurse Consultant-Palliative Care & Gerontology
Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Supreme Court Assisted Dying Decision: A New Social Disorder

By Jean Echlin RN, BScN, MScN

After 35 years of many fearing and rejecting hospice palliative care programs that provide life and death with dignity, we now have Canadians enamored with doctor provided death. The Supreme Court of Canada has abolished a portion of our Criminal Code that prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide. They have designated physicians as the group in our society to carry out the act of putting patients to death upon request. The patient must be suffering in a manner that is intolerable to them including both psychological and physical issues.

It must be remembered that nurses work closely with doctors following their orders and monitoring patients for any positive or adverse effects to treatment. Therefore nurses will automatically be assistants and collaborators in any type of inflicted death. In addition social workers, chaplains and other members of the inter-professional team will be affected.

Inflicting death on another human being is considered the ultimate act of violence so I ask: “How dare we ask our doctors and nurses to kill us?” But this is exactly what is proposed.

In my opinion, those who opt to carry out euthanasia and assisted suicide will no longer be trusted. As well I believe that acute and long term care institutions that enable patients to be put to death will not be trusted. Persons afraid of being euthanized will avoid admission on the basis of fearing an untimely death.

Other valid questions are: “How will those who inflict death deal with the emotional/ psychological aftermath? Will they develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with its’ inherent anxiety, nightmares, depression and suicidal ideation? Will they have some type of devastating spiritual/existential struggle following the process of putting patients to death?”

There are many health care professionals who have an ethical framework that will not support participation and this must be honoured. To have any leaders or directors in our professional associations dictate to those in the trenches of front-line care on the necessity to provide euthanasia or refer to another source is unconscionable and intolerable. The last time I looked, we still live in a democratic society with freedom of belief and religion sanctioned and guarded by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Do patients have a “right” to die?

I suggest there is no choice, we all die. However we can demand from our provincial and federal politicians support for hospice palliative care that will ensure excellence in the management of pain and other noxious symptoms that cause suffering. We can call for and support quality end-of-life care for every Canadian. We can support those at highest risk in this new social disorder: the elderly; persons with physical and/or emotional disabilities; patients with chronic and life-altering or life-threatening diseases.

We can teach medical and nursing students how to support and care for those who are labeled terminally ill; continue to educate current care providers on the best practice guidelines to meet the gold standard in palliative care; support and come along side those amazing professionals and volunteers who are currently involved in providing pain and symptom management; support the development of hospice palliative care in all facilities and in our communities.

The Hospice of Windsor & Essex County is regarded as an exemplary model across our nation. The successful development of our Hospice here speaks to the outstanding citizens who have given so much to help so many. Windsor’s reputation as a caring community is now a part of our national heritage. I am proud to be part of this heritage.

Jean Echlin RN, BScN, MScN
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Nurse Consultant-Palliative Care & Gerontology
Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing University of Windsor (ON)

Previous articles by Jean Echlin:

Monday, July 7, 2014

New Palliative Care Award named after Jean Echlin

The Jean Echlin Award for Ethics in Palliative care was announced by the deVeber Institute on July 3. In its announcement, the deVeber Institute stated that the new award recognizes and honours the important work done by Jean Echlin in her long and distinguished career in palliative care.

Jean Echlin was the founding Vice President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Windsor Star announced the Jean Echlin award by recognizing as a pioneer in palliative care. The Windsor Star stated:
One of Ontario’s leading pioneers in advances in palliative care was honoured Friday with a major award in the field dedicated in her name. 
Jean Echlin, 82, who continues to teach nursing courses at the University of Windsor and hold roles with several nursing and end-of-life care provincial organizations, will have a new annual award for “ethics in palliative care” in her name under the deVeber Institute for Bioethics & Social Research in Toronto. 
Echlin was instrumental in the founding of the Hospice of Windsor and Essex County’s clinical and volunteer programs. She also served as executive director of the Hospice. 

Sunday, March 23, 2014

How do you neutralize death?

By Jean Echlin, Windsor Star - March 21, 2014. Link to the original article.

The push by those driving the “dying with dignity” groups, including much of our media, to neutralize the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide now includes the Canadian Nurses Association, our national voice.

This came as a shock and disappointment to many of us classified as registered nurses with licensure to practice nursing in Canada. As well, many are profoundly concerned in light of the Quebec National Assembly’s stab at sanctifying euthanasia through Bill-52 by linking it directly to hospice palliative care.

The Quebec government has designated doctors as euthanizers. Many Quebec doctors have said “no.” Bill-52 is lethal and provides fertile ground for abuse. There is no protection for the vulnerable. The bill is currently on hold until the Quebec election.

This lack of humanity and vision should be worrisome to everyone, including retirees, older persons, individuals with any type of disability (emotional or physical) and residents of long-term care facilities.

Instead of recognizing the strides that have been made in the management of pain and noxious symptoms by hospice palliative care specialists over more than three decades, a few want to kill or be killed as a solution. So much for the so-called demanding autonomy of “I want what I want when I want it.”

We are experiencing a death by execution culture, morbidly concentrating on euthanizing and hastening death. The more gruesome the situation, the more it is capitalized on and highlighted. What happens that Canadians must suffer any type of painful death? It signifies failure in a system that knows better. We are failing to teach hospice palliative care and pain management for all types of pain — physical, emotional, spiritual/ existential — to our nursing and medical students. We fail to provide funding for excellence in end-of-life care. We fail to conduct ongoing education for our current care providers. We have failed to teach Canadians what is and should be available to everyone during a life-threatening or terminal illness.

Can you imagine a professor teaching nursing students how to do a lethal injection? How would the management of seizures, choking, vomiting and not dying as side effects be taught? This is described by doctors in Belgium.

Can you imagine a nurse or doctor entering a patient’s room with a needle/syringe loaded with drugs to kill? Can you envision pulling an “exit bag” over the head of a loved one and holding it there even if the person struggles? Can you envision a fatal dose coming your way without your knowledge or consent?

It is happening now in our country as well as the Netherlands. Belgium reeks of abuse and now extends euthanasia to children and teens. Some with little respect for life will say: “That’s so cool !” This, despite suicide prevention as a major societal concern.

Friday, September 20, 2013

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:

Friday, March 1, 2013

If you think Suicide in the Elderly is Courageous? Think Again!

By Jean Echlin

In February of this year, a national paper printed an extraordinary posthumous letter from a 91 year old woman who died by suicide because she was tired of living. She wanted to end her life with dignity. Though most of the (published) responses thought she was courageous, I disagree. I believe there is more to the issue when anyone contemplates suicide.

Ultimately suicide in the elderly is a failure. We must ask ourselves, is it because pain and suffering were not addressed? Did individuals thinking of suicide, and their families, not have access to help and support? Is it because of societal ambivalence about mental health issues or stigma about the elderly? Is it due to encouragement and even pressure by pro-suicide groups like Dying with Dignity? What is the future of this legacy?

Rory Butler
Rory Butler, founder of award winning agency Your Life Counts (www.yourlifecounts.org), and a suicide survivor himself, asks: 
“what message do the elderly convey to our youth if they advocate suicide? Adversity and physical discomfort are not the sole preserve of the elderly. So often I hear their family will ‘get over (their suicide)…’ but my experience has shown that families often struggle with this loss for the rest of their lives.” 
Rory notes that individuals in families who have lost a loved one to suicide are at a 30% increased risk of suicide.

Further Butler says: 
“instead we should give our youth the message that adversity, pain and struggle are part of the life cycle…that’s what it means to be human…so persevere, press on, don’t give up!  Yet we hear some grandparents say it’s okay to give up. Ultimately suicide is the triumph of pain, fear and loss over hope.”
World renowned Dr. Antoon Leenaars (Windsor, ON), preeminent psychologist on suicide says: 
“it is a myth to think that courage motivates suicide. Genuine courage is to change what we can. Underlying suicidal feelings of the elderly are hopelessness, discouragement, illness but always and especially despair. They see no alternatives. They see their lives as meaningless. They think ‘I might as well be dead.’”
He notes 
“it takes a community to help individuals find meaning when they feel they have no meaning. Their pain is immense. We must find a way to give them hope. Medication, therapy, hospice, family, community – all can help.”
Tim Wall, executive director, Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP) in the report Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians, from the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care stated:
“What is especially tragic is that suicide can be prevented with compassion and access to appropriate services 
In fact most people who are suffering and at risk for suicide can recover and experience a meaningful and hopeful life.”
Aging brings challenges. These may include loss of independence, chronic discomfort/ pain, even chronic illness. Do these problems mean our lives are no longer of value?

As someone advanced in years living with chronic pain, and who has been with hundreds of people at the end of their lives, I know that aging is a daily struggle with its own share of joy and hope. I believe advancing in years does not diminish the value of our contributions.
   
Jean Echlin, RN, MSN
Nurse Consultant-Palliative Care & Gerontology
Jean Echlin was the founding Vice President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Margaret Somerville says: Euthanasia ruling is convoluted and skewed.


On November 22, Margaret Somerville spoke at the University of Toronto on behalf of the deVeber Institute on the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Somerville focused on the one-sided skewed and convoluted decision by Justice Smith in the Carter decision in BC.

The following article was written by Michael Swan and published in the December 2 edition of the Catholic Register in Toronto under the title: Euthanasia ruling, convoluted skewed.


By Michael Swan, Catholic Register - December 2



With respect, Justice Lynn Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court of Justice is dead wrong, Margaret Somerville told about 300 people gathered at Toronto’s University of St. Michael’s College Nov. 22.

Margaret Somerville
The McGill University law professor and bioethicist picked apart the 137,000 words of the B.C. judge’s June 15 decision striking down the law against assisted suicide in the Carter case. That case has been kicked up to the B.C. Court of Appeal and will almost certainly wind up in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judge ruled that the prohibition of physician-assisted suicide under Canada’s Criminal Code infringe upon the rights of the disabled and on Canadians’ right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Somerville turned her legal mind to the judge’s use of the terms “Right to life,” “Respect for life,” “Inviolability of life,” “Protection of life,” “Sanctity of life” and “Quality of life” in her decision.


Smith ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of the right to life is violated by a law which denies citizens access to physician-assisted suicide. She reasons that a seriously ill patient who is determined to commit suicide would have to kill themselves before becoming too sick or frail to successfully commit self-murder alone. However, if physician-assisted suicide were available, patients could rely on doctors to kill them and therefore wait longer before committing suicide. By Smith’s reasoning, patients would live longer if they could order their doctors to kill them.


Somerville called the reasoning convoluted and skewed. The problem is that the judge considers only individual rights and not the effect on society as a whole.


Euthanasia is a “social act,” Somerville said, where “medical personnel are licensed and compensated by the state to take life.”


While Justice Smith seems to assume that personal autonomy is the value which trumps all others, society has rights too, said Somerville.


“The strongest case against euthanasia is what it is going to do to society,” she said.


Somerville has made similar arguments against legalizing physician-assisted suicide before, but Jean Echlin, University of Windsor lecturer and palliative care nurse consultant, still felt she had to be there to hear the secular champion of life issues speak.

Jean Echlin

“She inspires me,” said Echlin. “I love her inspirational message. It just kind of flows.

Echlin particularly wanted to hear Somerville pick apart the Carter judgment, which she believes does not line up with her bedside experience as a palliative care nurse.

Though official statistics claim 30 per cent of Canadians have access to palliative care at the end of life, Echlin believes it can’t be more than 20 per cent. To hear Somerville argue there can be no such thing as informed consent to euthanasia when other options are not available and pain is not well managed gave Echlin the satisfaction of hearing a respected legal scholar explain something she knows from experience.


For student Safina Allidina, an intern at the deVeber Institute, which sponsored Somerville’s lecture, learning from the McGill professor how euthanasia has escalated in European countries, where it was first envisioned as a rare event in need of legal protection, was eye-opening.


“I didn’t realize how extreme it has gotten in the Netherlands,” Allidina said.


Somerville outlined the program of Dutch doctors in specially equipped minivans who now make house calls to euthanize patients at home.


Sunnybrook Hospital’s Dr. Lucas Vivas felt he had to be there for Somerville’s talk.


“It’s a pressing issue in our field,” he said.


Vivas daily passes by Hassan Rasouli’s bed, though he’s not involved in the man’s care. Rasouli’s family has insisted he should remain on life support against the advice of Sunnybrook doctors, who believe there is no reasonable hope of recovery for the patient who has been in either a persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious since October 2010. The Rasouli family will argue before the Supreme Court of Canada Dec. 10 that he should remain on life support.


For Vivas the central question in end-of-life debates is sanctity of life.


“If there is no sanctity of life a lot of this is moot,” he said.


But in a secular society we have to decide what sanctity means for people who do not accept religious arguments, he said.


Though many polls show a majority of Canadians in favour of legalized physician-assisted suicide, the question has been framed in terms that make it seem cruel to force people to live on in pain, said Somerville. Nor is polling an appropriate way to determine how we care for the dying.


“Just because a majority votes for something doesn’t make it ethically acceptable or legally acceptable,” said Somerville.

Canada has to solve the legal and ethical problem of end-of-life care in ways that accord with the country’s deeper values and not simple economics or convenience, she argued.


“It’s how we treat dying people that will tell us the ethical tone of society.”

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Ugly issue back again.

Jean Echlin is a nurse consultant and adjunct associate professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Nursing and the founding VP of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 

Jean wrote an article on the current euthanasia and assisted suicide debate in Canada that was published in the Windsor Star today under the title: Ugly issue back again.

The following is an edited version of the article by Jean Echlin.
Ugly issue back again.

With the advent of Carter versus the Attorney General of Canada, Canada's laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide are being challenged again. This despite the fact that our federal Parliament vetoed Bill C-384 that sought to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia by an overwhelming vote of 228 to 59 in 2010.

Included in the British Columbia appeal is an effort to legalize these practices as "medical treatment," meaning that a medical doctor or "a person operating under the general supervision of a medical practitioner" will be allowed to assist a patient's suicide. This could be a family member and could be done at home.

If the pro-killing side gets its way, five people on the Supreme Court can overrule Parliament and demand change in the Criminal Code that forbids euthanasia and assisted suicide. What would this scenario do to our democratic process and the rights of a majority of Canadians?

Who would be at risk? You are. So is everyone in this country.

To paraphrase many knowledgeable authorities within the Euthanasia Prevention Coalitions worldwide, the request for a change in our Criminal Code is an invitation to elder abuse.

Many of our elderly population feel abandoned and burdensome to our society and healthcare system. If assisted suicide is legalized, it will empower the health-care system and family members to pressure older people to shorten their lives.

Persons with disabilities are equally at risk. The elderly and those with disabilities are groups that society often discriminates against and fails to respect or protect. Rather, these groups are looked upon as costly burdens.

Another significant health issue is suicide prevention. A change in the criminal code would foster the idea of suicide for those with depression and anxiety. It's called: "suicide contagion." In other words, one suicide encourages others. Persons with mental health is-sues are at increased risk and can be easily manipulated.

My own list of those at high risk includes partners in scenarios of domestic violence, especially when there is a power imbalance. It would be exceptionally easy for the powerful partner to quietly kill the "offensive partner" and just claim he or she "was so depressed and pleaded for assistance in dying."

Children must be included in the risk groups since the Netherlands has developed a protocol for killing children with even minor disabilities up to the age of 12.

The "Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care" will be releasing its research and recommendations regarding pain management, palliative care, elder abuse and suicide prevention. 
It is imperative that Parliament and all Canadians follow and adhere to the profoundly important message from this non-partisan committee.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Everyone dies: When, how and who decides?

Jean Echlin, the founding Vice President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and a nurse consultant in palliative care and gerontology wrote this article on the Rasouli case that was published today in the Windsor Star.

The Rasouli case concerned the question: Who has the right to decide to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment. The doctors said that they had the unilateral right to decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, while the courts decided that the doctor must obtain consent before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. The unanimous decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal is being appealed, by the doctors, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Echlin explains some of the issues related to the Rasouli decision within the complex dimension of modern medicine.

Echlin's article:
Decisions like this are fraught with anxiety, fear, moral and ethical issues and dilemmas. Differences of opinion are rampant. How is persistent vegetative state diagnosed? How is total brain death diagnosed? What criteria are acceptable to patients, families or alternative decision-makers, doctors and nurses?

How are all findings communicated to patients and their significant others? How and who decides to initiate a ventilator and tube feedings? How and who decides to discontinue this life support? Is there a palliative care consultation to discuss end-of-life issues?

Often the "treatment plan" is implemented in emergencies. After a time, the patient im-proves, deteriorates or remains unchanged, calling for change in the treatment plan, often resulting in confusion. When the patient is non-responsive to treatment or is deteriorating, doctors will use clinical data and judgment to decide if continuation of artificial ventilation and feeding is futile.

The family may totally disagree, based on their perception that their loved one is responsive and will improve, given time. Their moral, religious and cultural values have an enormous impact on their decision-making choice to say no to discontinuation of lifesupport. Health care providers must understand that, as a general rule, none of us want to choose death for a loved one.

The impasse in the Hassan Rasouli case is a typical example and has been reported in various Canadian newspapers and media. It was reported that Rasouli entered Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto in October 2010, for removal of a benign brain tumour. After surgery, the 59-yearold retired mechanical engineer developed bacterial meningitis and encephalitis, causing widespread damage to his brain. He was placed on a ventilator, and a feeding tube was inserted.

Later, his doctors described him as being in a "persistent vegetative state" with no hope of recovery, and thus wanted to remove life support. Rasouli's wife and children disagreed, believing he was responding.

His wife, Parichehr Salasel, a doctor in her native Iran, argued that giving up on him would violate his Shia Muslim beliefs, and this led them to seek legal assistance. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition obtained intervener status on behalf of the patient and family.

On July 8, Alex Schadenberg, executive director and international chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition announced: "EPC's interven-tion in the Rasouli case was successful." The three-judge Court of Appeal agreed with the position of EPC that "withdrawing life-sustaining treatment represented a change in the treatment plan. This decision requires a doctor to obtain consent before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment."

Schadenberg considers "the Rasouli decision a huge victory for individual rights and protects the values of Canadians." EPC lawyers argued: "Since life-sustaining medical treatment is part of the patient's treatment plan, discontinuation of life support required the consent of the person or substitute decision maker." Without reading the court document, I understand that, in Rasouli's case, doctors do not have the unilateral right to "pull the plug" even if they believe this treatment is futile.

This raises the question: Who has the right to decide? The issue creates a dilemma for patients, family and the health care team. Doctors are under pressure regarding limited resources; there is no athome support for persons on ventilators; there are individuals in emergency rooms waiting to access critical care beds. In our current economy, health care resources are stretched to their limit. There seems to be no one answer. Most questions remain unanswered.

In Ontario, when a disagreement occurs between doctors and families about discontinuation of treatment that supports life, there is an alternative. The Consent and Capacity Board can adjudicate toward a decision that reflects the "best interests of the patient."

Advanced technology and increased use of intensive care units give us a hint of immortality. This challenges us to find answers to critical life-and-death questions. As a death-denying culture, we fail to consider dying as part of the life cycle. Unfortunately, to most, death represents a failure of acute care.

When the prognosis for recovery is dismal, many approaches can mitigate a potential hassle between medical staff and family.

It is necessary for comprehensive and continual feedback to the patient and all concerned regarding essential medical information and any changes necessary in the treatment plan. Effective and compassionate communication skills are vital to co-operative decision-making.

The how, when and who decides are issues that must be examined as priorities by all Canadians. A major question is: Do we want our end-of-life care in an intensive care setting, hooked up to machines, or is a quiet, dignified program of hospice palliative care a better alternative?
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that if the Supreme Court of Canada hears the Rasouli case, that they may impose a new criteria to end-of-life decision making on all Canadians. The unanimous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that upheld that consent is required before life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn is a good decision and the Supreme Court of Canada should decide to not take up the Rasouli case.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Compassionate Care

Jean Echlin, the past VP of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and a former executive director of the Hospice of Windsor, sent in an article that was published in the Windsor Star concerning the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care.

The article is reprinted below:

Compassionate Care

Jean Echlin, Special to The Windsor Star - November 13, 2010

In April 2010, a new federal parliamentary group was formed. This followed the stunning defeat of Bill C-384, which sought to change Canada's Criminal Code to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Thanks to the vision of some members of Parliament who voted against the bill, a non-partisan, multi-party group called "the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care (PCPCC) began deliberations.

The Committee is co-chaired by Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin (NDP) and NDP Justice Critic; Scarborough Southwest MP Michelle Simson (Lib); Kitchener-Conestoga MP Harold Albrecht (CPC); founding members, MP Frank Valeriote; MP Kelly Block; and more than 50 MP members, with varying degrees of involvement.

A four-pronged approach developed by PCPCC includes: promotion of the need for palliative care for all Canadians facing end-of-life issues such as pain and symptom management; implications of an on-going mental health crisis and suicide prevention; elder abuse, including lack of compassionate care; and issues encountered by persons with disabilities.

Broad consultations are taking place in every region of Canada concerning present levels of care available to an ageing society and a critical nationwide shortage of expertise and resources in the field of palliative, hospice, home-care and mental health.

As a member of the Advisory Council of The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research's, Toronto, I attended the PCPCC's hearing, in the West Block of the federal Parliament Buildings on October 19.

The deVeber Institute's submission "Proposal for Integrated Palliative Care" was addressed by Dr. L.L. (Barrie) deVeber, founding director of The Institute and myself. The paper points out the need for education in palliative, end-of-life care for all healthcare providers and earlier patient referrals to palliative care specialists.

The existence of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care brings attention to the complex and multi-faceted needs of many Canadians facing the issues and often the chaos associated with acute and chronic pain, debilitating and late stage illness.

Many programs involved with hospice palliative care and pain management exist in Canada, however are accessible to only a small percentage of the population needing these services.

The utilization and effectiveness of these programs make it abundantly clear that there is no need for Canadians to spend much of their lives immobilized by chronic pain or to die in pain, loneliness, anxiety and bereft of dignity. We must keep pushing for appropriate, knowledgeable and compassionate care regardless of a person's diagnosis, (physical or mental illness), age, gender, culture or religious persuasion.

Personally, I am in awe of the enormity of work this parliamentary committee has undertaken. Their commitment to this effort in addition to their parliamentary and constituency workloads is highly commendable. Further, these parliamentarians are showing exemplary non-partisan collaboration in addressing these fundamental issues. It is hoped that this Committee will be a model for future governmental cross-party endeavours.

A favourite proverb: "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act."

Jean Echlin lives in Windsor and is an independent nurse consultant in palliative care and gerontology.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

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.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Death with Dignity or Obscenity?

By Jean Echlin, Nurse Consultant - Palliative Care & Gerontology

To die, to sleep--

To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub,

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause.

An excerpt from a monologue in the play "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare



A Sea of Trust?

There is a draconian evil moving aggressively through our culture. It comes in the form of a lethal cult called Compassion & Choices or Death With Dignity. Its leaders and adherents support the cause of euthanasia and assisted suicide which they call "aid-in-dying." Some adherents, who want death on demand, have a strong desire to die at the time of their choosing. However this is a deadly and distorted ideology. Its leaders insist that physicians, nurses or other health care providers prescribe and give lethal injections, provide the gas, or the drugs necessary to kill a person, or give them the means to kill themselves. This may include a plastic "Exit Bag" or simply a plastic garbage bag secured over the face, head and neck in order to dispense with oxygen.

Professional health care relationships with doctors, nurses, patients and family members float on a sea of trust. Asking professional health care providers to kill, or give the means to kill, will destroy this trust relationship. I emphatically believe that we have no right to ask our professional care givers to provide us with death. Neither should our health care providers ever feel obligated to comply with this narcissistic request.

Why do I believe that?

It is against every ethical principle and moral code for healers to intentionally cause the death of their patients. If they do, we in fact should not and could not ever trust them again. How would you know if the person coming into your hospital room with a needle was intent on curing you or killing you?

Currently, thousands of dollars are being collected throughout the U.S. to assist Washington State’s (I-1000) assisted suicide vote that would legalize assisted suicide in the upcoming American election. Unfortunately, many people in our culture have very little understanding of what this will mean in their future, in the future of their parents and the future of their children. Why are these dollars not being used to promote good pain management and excellence in end-of-life care?

What on earth are they thinking?

If you advocate for euthanasia and assisted suicide by voting for decriminalization the following will result. You will have the solid assurance of authorizing the death of you and/or your family members regardless of age or ability to consent.

Take for example, your 78 year-old mother who has been devastated and feels very depressed following the death of her spouse of more than 50 years. She is experiencing difficult symptoms related to a treatable but possibly late stage illness. How will you respond? Is it not in your mother’s best interest to get counseling in an attempt to treat her depression? If your mother should call upon an advocate or member of Compassion & Choices or Dying With Dignity, she would likely be encouraged to take their least dignified way out and "die now." An estimated 73% of all assisted suicide deaths in the State of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, are facilitated in some manner by the Compassion & Choices lobby group. When the "Right to Die" lobby and the end-of-life decision maker are the same people, there is no protection for your vulnerable mother.

Another scenario is your 65 year old father with late stage pancreatic cancer. He has been a very productive, healthy man who has chosen to live as long as he can. He refuses to be labeled "terminal." His medical oncologist has advised the use of palliative chemotherapy that is far less toxic than curative chemotherapy. Your father has received the news that his Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) has denied coverage for the chemotherapy. Instead, they offered to pay for him to obtain assisted suicide. He does not have the financial means to pay for this therapy, which his medical oncologist had indicated would give him an extension of life and better quality of life.

Accepting this offer will deny him the civil right to choose life instead of an assisted death. Does this seem fair or reasonable? What would you do in this situation? Could you afford to pay for his chemotherapy to assist in his self-determination to live longer? The less expensive choice of death is coercion to die that in the end leads to a "duty to die."

This happened to Barbara Wagner (54) in Oregon who was denied effective treatment for lung cancer but offered assisted suicide by the Oregon Department of Health. [see "Death drugs cause uproar in Oregon" August 6, 2008 ; http://abcnews.go.com]

Death is not the appropriate solution to pain and suffering, good palliative care is

If we vote to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide we are giving away our civil rights; in the United States - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in Canada - life, liberty and the security of person. The prophets of the death cult want us to believe death is the logical answer to pain and suffering. They may even see the infliction of death or the provision of assisted suicide as part of the hospice palliative care mission. They pursue their cause like missionaries and zealots proselytizing their gospel of death. Further, mainline media has picked up their cause and preach like the most persuasive evangelicals.

I believe that those medical professionals and organizations choosing to practice or support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide as "mercy killing" should not be providers of hospice palliative care. In addition, they should not be sitting on governing bodies, advisory councils or committees working on developing standards of practice for palliative care that may include assisted suicide as part of the hospice/palliative care continuum. This may mean that parallel programs not inclusive of assisted suicide and euthanasia may need to be developed.

Who is at risk?

If the law is changed to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide, those at highest risk will be:

· Older women (55 and above) or elderly fragile men

· Individuals with physical or mental disabilities

· 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

Jean’s Way

Derek Humphry is the co-founder of the Hemlock Society. In fact, Humphry’s notion of "self-deliverance" was practiced by him in the death of his first wife, Jean. Following her death, Humphry and his second wife Ann wrote the book Jean’s Way. This started Humphry’s rise to power and prestige in the cult of death. Later he participated, with Ann’s help, in procuring the death of his second wife’s parents ….something Ann would later deeply regret.

When Ann developed cancer, Humphry responded by encouraging her to commit suicide. When she decided to seek treatment, he abandoned her. In her book Deadly Compassion, Rita Marker quotes Ann’s last words to Derek Humphry: "What you did – desertion and abandonment and subsequent harassment of a dying woman – is so unspeakable there are no words to describe the horror of it." [excerpt from Ann Humphry’s suicide note].

This begs the question, what is misogyny? Does assisted death really have anything to do with love and compassion or is it often a misogynistic act?

Why Discuss Misogyny?

In our culture misogyny still exists. It would be wise to re-assess the history of misogyny in relation to the advocacy of assisted suicide and euthanasia. If these actions become permissible under the law, women will experience a jolt of reality. Historically, women have been vulnerable to male authority in politics, law, government, religion and medicine. According to Jack Holland in his book entitled Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice, he reminds us that even in ancient mythology there is much evidence of negative attitudes towards women.

For example, "Zeus created an ‘evil being’ for man’s delight." She was called "Pandora," who was told not to open the box she carried. Disregarding this order, Pandora opened the box, thus releasing every aspect of evil into the world, including sickness, death and old age.

Current misogynistic attitudes exist in all cultures; some worse than others. There are many countries where genital mutilation of girls is carried out. Huge atrocities in trafficking girls and women for prostitution are taking place world-wide. Pornography is a women-children oriented criminal activity occurring in all countries. Because of this on-going unequal status, women are still blamed for all kinds of evil. This places women more at risk than men in our culture of death.

Researchers Malphurs and Cohen published their findings in, "A Statewide Case-Control Study of Spousal Homicide-Suicide in Older Persons." Their study looked at twenty cases of homicide-suicide conducted over a two year period in the state of Florida. Malphurs and Cohen had no interest in euthanasia or assisted suicide and confined their research to mental health studies around issues of suicide and homicide. Their study was published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (March 2005).

Their findings illustrated that 25% of homicide-suicide perpetrators had a history of domestic violence. In the study, all of the perpetrators were men and 40% were care givers for their wives. Furthermore, their study points out that 65% of homicide-suicide perpetrators and 80% of suicides where a man committed suicide alone were men who were depressed before their deaths. All the perpetrators in this study were men who were described as dominating, controlling individuals. Their research points out that "depression" is prominent in persons of all ages who commit suicide. Their research also points out that most often the perpetrator is the husband and the victim is the wife.

How often do the media report that: ‘a sad, compassionate husband killed his partner as an ‘act of compassion?’ The poor man could not stand to see his partner suffering. Consequently the overdose of medications or a gunshot to the head was deemed necessary to cause the death of the partner. On the other hand, the death of the partner may also relieve the suffering of the perpetrator.

The cases of Robert Latimer in Saskatchewan and Terri Schiavo in Florida also follow a similar story line and serve as a warning to us all.

What about the State of Oregon?

The data collected in Oregon reveal the harmful consequences for patients. The Oregon "Death with Dignity Act" took effect in 1997. According to researchers Hendin and Foley ["Physician-assisted suicide in Oregon: a medial perspective" see www.michiganlawreview.org/archives/106/8/hendinfoley.pdf], safeguards for the care and protection of terminally ill patients under this law are being circumvented. One of the key problems seems to be the lack of appropriate data collected by the Oregon Public Health Division (OPHD) who are charged with monitoring the law. This organization failed to "ensure that palliative care alternatives to physician assisted suicide (PAS) are made available to patients" and they also failed to protect vulnerable patients by not ensuring that the safeguards are upheld. This study further points out that "the unintended consequences of (a single criterion of 6 months or less to live) is that it enables physicians to assist with suicide without inquiring into the source of the medical, psychological, social and existential concerns that usually underlie the requests for assisted suicide, even though this type of inquiry produces the kind of discussion that often leads to relief for patients and makes assisted suicide seem unnecessary."

The Editorial Board for the largest newspaper in Oregon, The Oregonian, opposes the I-1000 initiative to legalize assisted suicide in Washington State. To quote the Oregonian Editorial Board: "Don’t go there! We won’t be endorsing it. Our fundamental objection is the same as it’s always been – that it’s wrong to use physicians and pharmacists to hasten patients’ deaths."

The Board also objects to the lack of transparency in the Oregon experience. They stated: "Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide program has not been sufficiently transparent. Essentially, a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know. We're aware of no substantiated abuses, but we'd feel more confident with more sunlight on the program."

Physicians are not required to be knowledgeable about the relief of physical and emotional pain and suffering. This situation is shocking and should be unacceptable under the law. The Oregon "Death with Dignity Act" protects doctors much more than patients.

The Netherlands

Of interest are the Dutch government reports about euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (available on the internet www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctholl.htm). The Dutch Reports (Remmelink Reports) that were published in 1990, 1995, 2001 are horrifying. In addition, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine(May 2007) entitled: "End-of-life Practices in the Netherlands under the Euthanasia Act" states: "in 2005 there were 2,325 euthanasia deaths. There were approximately 100 assisted suicide deaths, and approximately 9,685 deaths related to terminal sedation. There were also 550 deaths without request that were reported". In the previous Dutch Reports these deaths without permission or request were in the range of 1,000 persons per year. These deaths are often imposed by physicians without the knowledge of the patient or family.

The numbers in the Dutch studies do not include the euthanasia deaths of handicapped infants and children or children up to the age of 12 with life-threatening illnesses. This takes place under the recent Groningen protocol. The studies do include patients with mental health/psychiatric problems. Many people oppose the use of euthanasia for mental disabilities simply because these people may be cognitively impaired and unable to understand the consequences of their decisions.

Doctors continue to determine who will live and who will die. Euthanasia is truly out of control in the Netherlands, thus the word "obscenity" in dying comes to mind. Should patients fear going into acute care or long term care institutions? This fear is borne out in the Netherlands where some people carry a card stating their wish not to be euthanized.

Earlier Dutch Reports indicated that doctors deliberately killed approximately 11,800 people each year by euthanasia, assisted suicide or other intentional actions or explicit omissions. The most recent reports would indicate that these numbers have in fact increased.

This is unconscionable in terms of medical practice. Palliative care should be available and used as the compassionate means to care without killing. The Dutch experience is a predictor of what will happen if assisted suicide and euthanasia are introduced into law.

It is noted by Alex Schadenberg, chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (International), that the decreased incidents of active euthanasia were replaced by the incredible increase in deaths by terminal sedation in the Netherlands.

Palliative Sedation or Terminal Sedation?

It is important to note that there is a difference between "palliative sedation" and "terminal sedation." Unfortunately the literature does not recognize this.

Palliative sedation is medication given to relieve the distress of a terminally ill patient in their last hours or days when other methods of pain management have failed the patient. This only happens in a very low percentage of patients – approximately 2 to 5 percent who have a pain escalation/surge at the very end of life. According to the Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, (2006;8(6):320-327) in the article: "The Process of Palliative Sedation" four criteria should be present:

· Symptoms that are unbearable and unmanageable

· A current do not resuscitate order (DNR) must be in effect

· A terminal diagnosis

· Death must be imminent within hours to days

It would be helpful to have a separate consent for palliative sedation. This would avoid any confusion around treatment plans. The intent of palliative sedation is to provide pain and symptom relief and not to hasten death.

On the other hand, "terminal sedation" as it is practiced in the Netherlands appears to be sedation followed by dehydration with the explicit intention of causing death. One of the most significant findings in current literature indicates that the use of opiates (morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, etc.) when properly titrated according to the patient’s pain intensity, do not hasten death. Also, this is one reason narcotics are not the drugs of choice for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

After reviewing current research it is evident that "palliative sedation" and "terminal sedation" need to be clearly defined and differentiated.

What is terminal?

One of the most difficult clinical assessments is the determination of when a human being is actually "terminal." A disease can be labeled terminal at it’s diagnosis as in terminal cancer. This does not mean that a person is imminently dying. In fact the life span may be anywhere from months to years. It is often difficult for the most astute diagnostician to predict the actual end stage or terminal stage of disease. This is true of the major categories of disease such as cardiovascular, neurological, cancer, renal failure, diabetes etc.

How dare we assume that a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness means that a person is "terminal?" One significant lesson learned from the bedside of a patient of mine is: "Do not let anyone label me "terminal." I will tell you when it is my time. Give me a measure of hope and speak to my living!" These were the words spoken by a 38 year old man who desperately wanted to live.

Individuals facing life-threatening disease are usually depressed. Depression is treatable even in late stage disease. Thus, euthanasia and assisted suicide represent a threat to people both needing medical and psychological support for clinical depression.

What is Hospice Palliative Care?

Hospice Palliative Care is the provision of pain and symptom management for individuals experiencing life-threatening, life-limiting, progressive or terminal disease. The cornerstone of excellence in this newer health care reform is the management of pain and other distressing symptoms. A person in pain is unable to focus on anything except their need for pain relief. Having to cry or plead for pain or anxiety medication leaves the patient feeling degraded demoralized and dehumanized. In cases like these their desperation is often distressing enough to make them wish for death. Individuals have the right to appropriate pain and symptom management.

In addition, palliative care focuses on emotional, social and existential suffering. This care may be combined with therapies aimed at reducing or curing the illness or it may be the total focus of care. Grief and bereavement follow-up may be a part of this caring process.

Many therapeutic modes exist to help with the pain experience. These include, but are not limited to, the use of narcotics, nerve blocks, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, guided imagery and relaxation techniques, therapeutic touch, raikki, hypnosis, music and art therapy.

Programs of hospice palliative care take a multi-disciplinary team approach utilizing the skills of doctors, nurses, chaplains, social workers and physiotherapists, with the added benefit of trained volunteers.

Including these in the care of patient and family can provide enough quality end-of-life support to eliminate the desire for a premature death caused by euthanasia or assisted suicide. For the infrequent situations where pain and anxiety may appear unmanageable, "palliative sedation" may be considered. This is not euthanasia. It is good palliative care. The intention is to relieve pain and suffering, not to hasten death.

Everybody needs to have access to quality end-of-life care through hospice palliative care programs. Further, medical practitioners, nurses, pharmacists and other members of the health care team should keep informed of newer methods of pain and symptom management. This should be a mandatory requirement through the various licensing bodies.

According to Dr. M. Scott Peck in his book, Denial of the Soul: "Failure to treat pain is medical malpractice…. it is one of the worst crimes in medicine today." His words ring true and he too suffered the pain experience.

Hospice Palliative Care – The Great Hope

Today, there is no excuse for any individual, be they adult or infant, to experience an agonizing death. We have an armamentarium of methods and pharmaceuticals (medications) to modify physical pain and death anxiety. Unfortunately, too many of our health care providers, particularly nurses and doctors, are not effectively trained in the principles and practices of this newer health care reform (30 years) called Hospice Palliative Care. Neither are they educated in the newer methods of pain relief for acute, chronic and end-stage disease.

The "death squad mentality" has no place in our health care systems

Doctors and nurses should never be killers. I can only hope there are very few who would consent to provide euthanasia and assisted suicide, but we do not know how many doctors and nurses would provide death if given the opportunity. A 1998 study from Georgetown University’s Center for Clinical Bioethics found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on physicians and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients – were it legal to do so. [Sulmasy, Daniel R. et al. "Physician resource use and willingness to participate in assisted suicide", Archive of Internal Medicine, vol. 158, May 11, 1998]

The legalization of euthanasia would remove an individual patient’s autonomy and put it into the hands of professionals with potential control issues; who may be angry, sadistic and abusive. We have all seen colleagues both at the bedside and in health care management who have significant personality flaws, such as no compassion for the pain and suffering of others. These people may often take the law and the lives of others into their own hands. The reality is that individual patients will lose autonomy in the name of autonomy.

Have we learned from the past?

The era prior to Hitler’s reign of horror, should haunt our thinking. Do we want the responsibility of repeating a violation of humanity by our egotistical need to control the time of our death? The doctors in Germany who experimented with various methods of killing people with disabilities (mental or physical) under the eugenic ideology are going to be replaced in history with doctors and nurses of today who are willing to take part in the deadly type of evil called euthanasia and assisted suicide. Professionals who opt to provide death, will be changed…even hardened in their "psyches" treating life and death as meaningless.

A Voice of Experience

With 29 years experience as a palliative care nurse consultant, I have been at the bedside of more than 1,000 dying individuals. It is my learned experience that persons who receive timely, appropriate and expert pain and symptom management, including attention to their significant issues, do not ask for assisted suicide or euthanasia. According to Dr. Neil MacDonald in the Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, proper pain management can actually extend the life span as patients experience improved quality of life. Palliative care is a life-giving therapy not a life-limiting therapy. Dying with dignity can only be achieved with expert hospice palliative care. This is the compassionate choice and should be available for every individual in Canada and the United States, throughout their life span.

Expert hospice palliative care requires a commitment of health care dollars, strong community and institutional and home health care and compassionate support for vulnerable people.

Euthanasia treats people as disposable objects. Everyone should be concerned…. even frightened by the possibilities of euthanasia and assisted suicide changing the value and dignity that is attributed to the dying, chronically ill and people with disabilities. This is especially true in health care systems facing financial and resource cutbacks where death may be seen as more fiscally efficacious than life. A move in the direction of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will eventually herald the holocaust of this millennium

Are you really willing to leave this appalling legacy for the next generation?

Jean Echlin R.N., M.S.N. is a pioneer in Hospice Palliative Care. In 2004, the Ontario Palliative Care Association (OPCA) recognized her 26 year contribution to hospice palliative care by selecting her for the prestigious "Dorothy Ley Award of Excellence" for her part in "fostering the true spirit of Palliative Care in Ontario." Echlin formerly served on faculty, University of Windsor’s Faculty of Nursing, and was director of nursing at Windsor Regional Hospital’s Metropolitan Campus. As coordinator and clinical nurse specialist, then executive director, Jean was instrumental in the development of the Hospice of Windsor & Essex County Inc. which is recognized as exemplary in Canada. In 1988, Jean moved to London, Ontario and established the Palliative Care Consultation Team in the heart of tertiary care at University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre. She is also recognized as a distinguished public speaker, educator and free-lance writer. Jean is an independent nurse consultant; formerly vice-president Euthanasia Prevention Coalition; serves on the Advisory Council of the deVeber Institute of Bioethics and Social Research; is a member of the Honour Society of Nursing and member Emeritus of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario.