Oregon assisted suicide 2018: new highs (new lows)

This article was published by the Care Not Killing Alliance (UK) on March 4, 2019

Assisted suicide numbers continue to rise in Oregon, with almost two thirds now citing fear of being a burden as a reason for ending their lives, as lawmakers consider widening eligibility

Oregon used to be the blue-eyed boy of the assisted suicide movement in England. Lionised by Lord Falconer and Rob Marris MP, it was said to show how legalised assisted suicide could be regulated and trusted, but the Westminster bills that followed it failed, with MPs rejecting the 2015 Marris Bill 330-118 because of the clear evidence that assisted suicide always becomes what it was not planned to be.

The release of the 21st annual report, for 2018, only adds to the reasons not to allow euthanasia a toehold in the UK.

Oregon 2018 assisted suicide report. A record number of assisted deaths.

Record high number of deaths

Last year in Oregon, 168 people died after ingesting lethal drugs prescribed by a doctor, ten more than in 2017. To put that into context, Oregon is a state of 4.19m people; if the 168 deaths were extrapolated for a UK-sized population of 66m, the death toll would be more like 2,646. Imagine the London Palladium or Royal Opera House filled to capacity; then have 400 more people sit cross-legged on the stage; then shut off the lights. One of the reasons assisted suicide campaigners like to focus on individual hard cases is that they don't have to address how, once legalised, the practice becomes normalised, and with each passing year more and more people come to believe they too should seek death.

Almost two thirds feared being a burden

Assisted suicide and euthanasia are often presented as resolving a medical issue, but the chief reasons cited are always existential.

Once again last year, the proportion of those seeking assisted suicide not wishing to be a burden on loved ones and caregivers rose, this time to 63.6%. Campaigners might note that this didn't top the list: 95.6% cited being 'less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable' and 95.1% cited 'losing autonomy', but these are inextricably linked with the concept of being a burden and speak to the care and support available to people with terminal and incurable conditions and how those people feel in accepting these, to say nothing also of the support given to carers by employers and local authorities. The very idea of a physician endorsing suicidal intent on the grounds of not wanting to be a burden is obscene.

Some doctors prescribed lethal drugs every 10 or 11 days

Doctor-shopping is a known facet of assisted suicide in practice. Some doctors do not participate due to conscientious objections; others might assess patients who in their opinion do not meet the legal criteria. Some doctors, however, are at ease with the practice of prescribing lethal drugs to patients: the 249 prescriptions written in 2018 were made out by 103 doctors; at least one of these doctors made out 35 on their own; averaged out across the year, they sought to assist a patient's suicide every 10 or 11 days. 'Patient' suggests a meaningful relationship, but prescriptions were made out on the basis of doctor-patient relationships lasting as little as a week.

They could have lived for years

Oregon law stipulates that assisted suicide is available to 'an adult who... has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease', the latter being defined as 'an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.' The flexibility of this definition has been acknowledged openly by health officials, and the statistics once more demonstrate the unreliability of a six month prognosis. Patients lived for up to 730 days between first request and death among those whose assisted suicides fell last year; that's more than two years. The record is 1,009 days - almost three years - and of course there is no knowing how long those patients could have lived even beyond those two or three years. How many of those told they were near the end and who took the cocktail of barbiturates in short order could in fact have lived for many more months or years? We can never know.

Of course, much of this would be academic if the state representatives and senators behind HB 2232 get their way: they wish to redefine terminal illness as 'a disease that will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce or substantially contribute to a patient's death.'
Complications

Last year in Oregon, three of those who died had difficulty ingesting or regurgitated the drugs, with a further four suffering 'other' unspecified complications. There were 168 deaths last year, and for 105, there is no report either way on complications. We do know that there would have been 169 deaths, but one participant 'regained consciousness after ingesting DWDA medications.' For researchers writing in the journal of the Association of Anaesthetists recently, such complications raise 'a concern that some ["assisted dying"] deaths may be inhumane'. So much for "dignity".

"Assisted Dying" - for arthritis and diabetes

The 21st report is the most detailed yet with regard to the underlying illnesses of those who have died. Two people had 'Endocrine/metabolic disease e.g. diabetes', and six people had 'other illnesses'. A footnote regarding the latter says that 'includes deaths due to arthritis, arteritis, sclerosis, stenosis, kidney failure, and musculoskeletal systems disorders'. Note 'due to': 'the Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics recommends that physicians record the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death and mark the manner of death "natural"' - despite the cause of death in fact being the supply and ingestion of a prescribed overdose of barbiturates.
The Oregon statistics are a patchwork of new highs and new lows; linguistic contortions and administrative deceits. Taken as a whole, they are yet another reminder that the warm and comforting theory of advocates in the UK doesn't stand up to the buffeting of reality where legislators have made the unenviable decision to make death a form of care. The enduring lesson is clear: don't go there.

The case for assisted suicide is inherently flawed.

This article was published by the Economist Magazine on August 28, 2018.

Kevin Yuill is author of the book: Assisted Suicide - The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalization.

Professor Kevin Yuill

The case for assisted suicide seems to consist of terrible stories of people dying protracted, painful deaths and prevented by a cruel law from gaining the relief they seek. But this is not always accurate. As the official reports in Oregon and Washington show, pain is not in the top five reasons why people opt for assisted deaths. It is fear that dominates people’s concerns: of loss of autonomy, loss of enjoyment of life’s activities and loss of dignity. I believe these fears are curable, even if the underlying disease that robs people of such functions is not.

Kevin Yuill: Assisted suicide and the false concept of autonomy.

Lord Falconer characterised the existing law as “incoherent and hypocritical”. But that description seems more apposite for many of the arguments for changing the law. There is an Orwellian self-deception in the idea that “assisted dying” is a safe, healthy way of dying compared to “violent” suicide. But the violence inherent in suicide comes not from the method used, but from the extinction of life from a body.

Then there is the unresolvable problem of where to draw the line. The orthodox argument, ably expressed by Lord Falconer, has it that we should draw the line at six months. But this doesn’t add up. If we argue that the relief of suffering is the most important issue, then six months to live is utterly random; people who have more time clearly suffer. As Lord Neuberger, the president of Britain’s Supreme Court between 2012 and 2017, said in relation to Tony Nicklinson, a man with locked-in syndrome who campaigned unsuccessfully for the right to die: “There seems to me to be more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months to live.”

When should someone be allowed to help someone else to die? The moral essence of the question concerns our attitude towards suicide. Is it okay in some instances, when someone is really suffering? When they have certain horrific diseases? When they are over 70, as a bill proposed by the Dutch government would have it? Or should we approve it whenever someone says they are suffering unbearably?

My case is not against suicide per se. Though most suicides are tragedies, others, such as that of Captain Oates, who sacrificed himself for the good of his comrades on the ill-fated Scott expedition to the South Pole in 1912, are beautiful acts, the epitome of selflessness, duty to one’s fellows and courage.

Our attitude to suicide is necessarily ambivalent. All free, competent adults should be free to make the decision whether or not to live. I disagree with my good friend Peter Saunders when he says “we recognise that personal autonomy is not absolute.” In relation to the decision to commit suicide, it must be (and with assisted suicide, it is not).

Anyone determined enough to do so will likely take their own life, regardless of laws. I am on record as supporting the removal of what I see as the patronising prevention of competent adults getting their hands on deadly drugs. It is the assistance—the complicity of the community in the death of a human being—that is the problem.

Kevin Yuill: Legalizing assisted suicide is dangerous. Just look at Canada.

Kevin Yuill lectures in history at the University of Sunderland, in the UK, and is the author of Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation

Assisted suicide for disabled people – democracy in Britain?

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE, Director of Hope Ireland, published on the Hope Ireland's blog.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s recent research results[1] are extremely important.

As Baroness Helena Kennedy QC said in a public debate (Southbank, January 28 2012), ‘This is about the kind of society we want to live in’.

Cohen-Almagor’s paper reprises a truth Baroness Jane Campbell, founder of Not Dead Yet UK, has spent years trying to help people understand. We have clear evidence that assisted suicide/euthanasia laws are aimed primarily at disabled people. Lord Falconer has now openly admitted this on the Daily Politics show (BBC 9 June 2015).

Pain, we have repeatedly said, is not the primary reason for asking for assisted suicide. Falconer agrees: ‘…pain…can be dealt with…it is the sense of people losing independence and being reliant on other people…there’s a small number of people who…find that an intolerable position…’ Yes, 61% of people in Washington State US say they want to die because they feel themselves ‘to be a burden on others’.[2] No small number that.

Rob Marris, MP is now determined to bring forward in the House of Commons the Assisted Dying Bill. But this softened language is mere disguise according to page 39 of Lord Falconer’s own ‘commission’ report: ‘assisted dying’ just means ‘Assisted suicide/euthanasia’.[3]

Marris topped the ballot for a Private Member’s Bill. Falconer came twenty-first. Suddenly, Marris had adopted Falconer’s Bill as his own project. I cannot help but wonder how the other nineteen who came out of the hat before Falconer now feel. Is this really democracy in action? So that people may die if they fear the kind of ‘dependence’ millions of us disabled people accommodate every day?

Britain to debate assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The British House of Lords has debated many assisted suicide bills over the past few years. In fact the House of Lords debated the Falconer assisted suicide bill in the past year, a bill that died on the order paper before the election. The House of Commons has not debated an assisted suicide bill in 20 years.

Yesterday backbencher British Labour MP, Rob Marris, was chosen first in the Private Members bill ballot giving Marris the right to introduce Falconer's assisted suicide bill in the House of Commons.

According to the BBC, the Marris assisted suicide bill is scheduled for its first hour of debate on September 11.

Prime Minister Cameron

Prime Minister David Cameron, who has a majority government, opposes assisted suicide. The Express and Star reported that Cameron told his weekly Prime Minister's Question Time that:

“I don’t support the assisted dying proposals. I don’t support euthanasia.” 

...problems with the existing law can be ‘dealt with sensitively’ without ‘bringing in euthanasia’.

Mark Atkinson

The media reported that Mark Atkinson, the interim chief of the disability rights charity - Scope warned that legalizing assisted suicide would put people with disabilities at risk:

"Many disabled people are really worried about the legalisation of assisted suicide. 

“They are concerned that it will lead to them feeling under pressure to end their lives.”

While Agnes Fletcher, Director of Living and Dying Well, added: 

“The bill contains very few explicit safeguards.”

The Care Not Killing Alliance, Not Dead Yet UK, Living and Dying Well coalition and many other groups oppose the assisted suicide bill because it gives physicians, the right in law to cause the death of their patients when their patients are at the most vulnerable time of their lives.

British disability leader speaks out against assisted suicide - "I am convinced that a change in the law would put our lives at risk."

These are the two speeches by Baroness Jane Campbell in the British House of Lords on January 16, 2015 opposing the assisted suicide bill.

Baroness Campbell was Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) from 2006–2008, Chair of the Disability Committee which lead on the EHRC Disability Programme, former Chair of the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) and Commissioner of the Disability Rights Commission until October 2006.

Cambell has been featured in several articles on assisted suicide such as: ● Assisted Suicide could lure me to the grave, ● Why I oppose assisted suicide and ● Assisted suicide bill in Britain is fatally flawed.

Baroness Campbell's first speech in the House of Lords - January 16, 2015. 
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am sorry I have not got a loud voice. I may be a little slow. This is not because I want to hold up the Bill, I just have things to say.

Baroness Jane Campbell

We have been told time and again that disabled people with life-limiting conditions—and I use that term advisedly because we do not recognize the terms “terminal illness” and “months” or “weeks to live”; ... have nothing to fear from the Bill. We are told that it is necessary only to help a few desperate individuals to end their lives when they have weeks or months to live, and that, if enacted, it will not touch anyone who does not want it. 

I do not believe that and, it seems, neither do the authors of the Bill. Why else would they elect to name it the Assisted Dying Bill instead of the assisted suicide Bill? If it is truly concerned only with personal autonomy and choice, surely that should be celebrated and clear.

By avoiding the term “assisted suicide”, the Bill circumvents the framework of measures in place to review, monitor and prevent other forms of suicide. It seeks to exclude deaths under the Bill from the general requirement for a coroner’s inquest to be conducted where suicide is considered a possible cause of death. It contains a provision for publication of annual statistics of “assisted deaths” separate from the established arrangements for collecting and publishing statistics on deaths by suicide. It provides for a death under the Bill to be recorded by the registrar as an “assisted death”.

I have a question for the Minister. This Government, like their predecessors, have a major cross-departmental suicide prevention strategy. It seeks,

“a reduction in the suicide rate in the general population in England”,

and defines suicide as,

“a deliberate act that intentionally ends one’s life”.

In the light of this definition, will the Minister inform us whether, if the Bill were to become law, he anticipates a rise in the suicide rate, and would he expect the suicide prevention strategy to contain measures to reduce the numbers in this group intentionally ending their own lives?

We all, in this House and outside, understand the word “suicide”. It centres on the individual. The act of suicide is the responsibility of the person who commits it, and no other. It is impossible to commit suicide without first consenting to do so. The same does not apply to the word “dying”.

Assisted dying is practised in Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Whatever the initial intentions were, decisions to end life in those places are now not taken only by the individual. It is not an autonomous act. The slippery slope is oiled by the vague euphemism of “assisted dying”. Disabled people are rightly frightened that the Bill, as currently named, puts them at risk. ... “Assisted suicide” makes it clear that only the individual may instigate and control the process leading to an early, state-sanctioned death. I urge noble Lords to support this argument.

Baroness Campbell's second speech in the House of Lords - January 16, 2015. 

Baroness Campbell speaking to the
Not Dead Yet UK rally in July 2014.

I thank the Minister. My Lords, there are many reasons why I strongly oppose the Bill and why I have spoken against it in the past. But one of the most important reasons why I oppose the Bill is the definition of terminal illness and how many months, weeks or years we have to live. The definition in the Bill gives rise to uncertainty and is therefore terribly open to misinterpretation and abuse. Proponents of the Bill claim that “disabled” and “terminally ill” are distinct from one another. We are told that disabled people can be assured that the Bill is not intended to apply to them.

Isn't assisted suicide really suicide?

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nick Clegg

Yesterday Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK, announced at a mental health conference, the government's intention to reduce suicide to zero by working in cooperation with every part of the National Health Service and other agencies.

According to The Telegraph news, Clegg is modeling this suicide prevention program on the successful program that was implemented in Detroit Michigan. The article stated:

... every suicide is preventable if NHS trusts provide better care for people suffering from depression and other serious illnesses. 

The “zero suicides” target can be met through simple measures, such as keeping in touch with patients who have been discharged from mental health wards and creating a plan so that patients and their friends know whom to contact if they are placing themselves in danger. 

Police and transport agencies will be called on to examine whether safety measures can be put in place in “hot zones” where high numbers of suicides occur, such as shopping centres or bridges. 

The plans have been inspired by a mental health programme in Detroit, US, where a “zero suicide” commitment resulted in no-one in the care of state depression services taking their lives in two years.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and similar organizations encourages the UK government to implement a goal of ending suicide. We recognize that suicide is 100% preventable.

At the same time the British House of Lords continued their debate on Lord Falconer's assisted dying bill, a bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in the UK.

Kevin Yuill

In response to the assisted suicide debate, Dr Kevin Yuill asks the question - isn’t assisted dying really suicide? Yuill states in his article:

Yet the campaign against suicide throws up questions about assisted dying, which was debated in the House of Lords last week. Here we find another example of the “massive taboo” that people are scared to talk about. That is: isn’t assisted dying really suicide? How can we wage a war against suicide for some whilst encouraging it as a legitimate choice for others? ... it is difficult to argue that what is being proposed is not essentially suicide. 

Psychiatric euthanasia deaths tripled in the Netherlands.

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This Friday, January 16, the British House of Lords will resume its debate on the assisted dying bill. Today, the Daily Mail published an extensive article on the euthanasia practice in the Netherlands.

The article focuses on the Netherlands euthanasia statistics and recent trends including the fact that psychiatric euthanasia tripled in the Netherlands in 2013. The article states:

The latest official figures also revealed a 15 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths from 4,188 cases in 2012 to 4,829 cases last year. 

The incremental rise is consistent with a 13 per cent increase in 2012, an 18 per cent rise in 2011, 19 per cent in 2010 and 13 per cent in 2009. 

The rise is also likely to confirm the fears of Dutch regulator Theo Boer who told the Daily Mail that he expected to see euthanasia cases smash the 6,000 barrier in 2014. 

Overall, deaths by euthanasia, which officially account for three per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands, have increased by 151 per cent in just seven years.

The statistics also indicate that of the 4829 euthanasia deaths in 2013, about 3600 were people with cancer, 97 were people with dementia and 42 were people with psychiatric issues.

Peter Saunders

Dr Peter Saunders, a founder of the Care Not Killing Alliance, told the Daily Mail that the experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands indicates that euthanasia is impossible to effectively regulate.

‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is “incremental extension”, the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’ 

...there was a similar pattern of increasing numbers of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US state of Oregon, Switzerland, and Belgium. 

‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’

Theo Boer

The article then interviews Professor Theo Boer, who was a member of Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands for 9 years, recently changed his mind and now opposes euthanasia.

Professor Boer, who has reviewed 4,000 cases of euthanasia in his role as a regulator, told Parliament in the summer: ‘Don’t go there.’ 

Once a firm advocate of euthanasia, he said that he now the Dutch were ‘terribly wrong’ to think they could control it.

Writing in the Daily Mail, he said his country has witnessed an ‘explosive increase’ in the numbers of euthanasia deaths since 2007 and that he expected the number of such deaths this year to hit 6,000. 

He was also gravely concerned at the extension of killing to new classes of people, including the demented and the depressed. ‘Some slopes truly are slippery,’ he said.

The article then examing the experience with euthanasia in Belgium.

Doctors in neighbouring Belgium, which this year legalised euthanasia for children, are now killing an average of five people every day by euthanasia, according to latest figures, with a 27 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths in the last year alone. 

In one of the most shocking cases, a Brussels man last week described how he arranged the double euthanasia of his octogenarian parents who wanted to die because they were afraid of loneliness.

The article concludes by explaining that the Netherlands have now interpreted the term "unbearable suffering" to apply to mental anguish. The article states:

It has also emerged that a Dutch woman in her 80s was killed by her doctors just because she did not want to live in a care home. 

The case is the first to be referred to Dutch prosecutors by regulators since euthanasia was legalised in Holland 12 years ago.

The British House of Lords needs to listen to the experience of Professor Boer and reject the assisted dying bill.

Links to more information:

• Theo Boer: "Assisted suicide: Don't go there."
• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.
• Dutch euthanasia clinic injects woman who didn't want to live in a nursing home.

Help Not Dead Yet UK defeat the assisted suicide bill.

Join the Not Dead Yet UK thunderclap to unleash tweets, facebook and social media messages in opposition to the assisted suicide bill at the same time on Friday January 16, the day when the House of Lords will be yet again discussing and amending the assisted dying bill.

Not Dead Yet UK has been using thunderclap for the past year and it has enabled them to win the social media battle. The assisted suicide lobby has caught onto this and have copied them. Instead of physically protesting on Friday, Not Dead Yet UK are having a virtual protest which includes writing to peers and signing up to their Thunderclap. Please use your networks to ensure we have a virtual presence opposing the assisted suicide bill on Friday?

Link to thunderclap: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/21181-opposing-an-assisted-dying-law

The Not Dead Yet UK Thunderclap just went online so only a few have signed up but that will soon change with your help. 

The Thunderclap is set to go off  just before the Lords debate begins in London England at 9.30 am (GMT) on Friday 16th January.

That is the same as 4:30 am (Toronto/EST) or 5:30 pm (Sydney Australia)

Many thanks for your continued help in this campaign.

Liz Carr – Not Dead Yet UK

Assisted dying would turn doctor's into executioners.

A majority of Britons may support the Bill, but that's also true of the death penalty

I was going through past articles from and I came across this article that was originally published in the Independent on July 18, 2014. Alex Schadenberg

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

Clayton Lockett’s death by lethal injection earlier this year in Oklahoma brought a storm of criticism of Oklahoma’s death penalty procedures. Lockett mumbled, writhed, blinked his eyes and licked his lips throughout the procedure and took over 30 minutes to die. The Los Angeles Times observed: “The Oklahoma case is sure to be cited as strong evidence that state prison authorities cannot be trusted to capably administer lethal injections.”

But today the House of Lords is debating whether to invest British doctors with the same powers as the Oklahoma state prison authorities. Doctors will effectively become executioners if Lord Falconer’s Bill becomes law.

Why do liberals who, like me, think that capital punishment is unacceptable in a civilized society rush to support Falconer’s Bill? Beyond simply the method of dispatching people, there are many other similarities. If the premeditated killing of a human being by the state, even for the best possible reasons, is wrong, assisted dying is wrong.

Of course, there are important differences between assisted dying and capital punishment. But the similarities bear scrutiny in relation to today’s debate.

Liz Carr: Silent Witness, the Right to Die and the perceived value of people with disabilities

This article is part of the interview by Hannah Dunleavy with disability leader, actress and comedian, Liz Carr, that was published in Standard Issue Magazine on December 3, 2014. 

Liz Carr currently stars in the BBC TV show Silent Witness.

Liz Carr: Not So Silent Witness comments on assisted suicide:

... With Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill at the committee stage, we can’t not talk about this vision of the Right to Die.

“It puts too much power in hands of the medical profession. I’m not religious, I’m not anti-choice. And it’s not that I’m not compassionate, I hope.

“What concerns me are doctors are already a very closed shop. You will find doctors that will help you and doctors who won’t, and that’s happening now. But it will be much harder to challenge.

“Currently, where people have had assistance to end their life, it often will go through the court, so it’s there for people to see what’s going on. And I feel better with those safeguards.

“I fear we’ve so devalued certain groups of people – ill people, disabled people, older people – that I don’t think it’s in their best interests to enshrine in law the right of doctors to kill certain people.

“I think it will begin with terminally ill people and then that definition will widen. It’s not like I think people will be taking granny to the chambers. It’s much more subtle. It’s almost like constructive dismissal where so many things are happening to you – your benefits have been cut, you’re in pain, you’re ill but the home help can’t come anymore. Or your family are tired from looking after you and you don’t want to see them suffer. There are so many reasons that all come together. For some people, if we put in the right supports, would they still want to die?

Liz Carr as Clarissa Mullery in Silent Witness

"The phrase dying with dignity has been synonymous with the people who support this legislation. I don’t want people to die in pain or without dignity, I think people can have that with decent healthcare and medical care, where we plough money into palliative care.

“Hospices aren’t government funded they’re privately funded and we need to look at that and giving people the choice to die how they want. And if there’s still a group of people who aren’t happy, then we ask ‘are we in a position to provide for that?’”

UK proposes to Create “Suicide Courts?”

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on November 8, 2014. 

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Talk about a death panel!

The House of Lords is debating again to legalize assisted suicide–struggles with the nonsense of fashioning ”strict guidelines” to protect against abuse. (As I have repeatedly shown, guidelines don’t protect, they just give the illusion of control.)

The latest scheme is to create what could be called “suicide courts,” where suicidal people will ask a judge to approve their doctor-prescribed suicide. From the Independent story:

Judges could routinely be given the power of life or death over patients who are determined to die to end their suffering. 

Proposals to use judges as the final arbiters of who can be helped to die go some way to satisfying opponents to Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill. Lord Pannick QC proposed judicial oversight in amendments to the Bill which went before the House of Lords yesterday. The Lords, in the first Parliamentary vote on the Bill, gave it their approval.

This is nuts! This would be worse than Oregon, in some ways, more destructive than Belgium and the Netherlands!

Assisted suicide should be illegal because it amounts to a joint enterprise to end a human life.

With legalization, you have private transactions between doctors and suicidal patients. It’s wrong, but the government isn’t officially or directly involved in the death.

But a suicide court would make the government a direct participant in suicide. The State would be ruling that some lives are not worth living. It would give an explicit imprimatur to suicide.

That’s a huge and dangerous step that should never be taken.

And here’s the irony: The UK opposes the death penalty. Trying to accommodate the Culture of Death is driving us out of our minds.

UK poll: Assisted suicide is not safe.

This article was published by the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK.

Peers urged to ditch dangerous assisted suicide bill, as new polling shows that one in ten Britons would favour rewarding older people for ending their lives.

1. More than four in 10 believe assisted suicide will be extended beyond the terminally ill if the current law is changed. 

2. Clear majority of public says there is no safe system of assisted suicide. 

3. Fewer than three in 10 believe changing the law on assisted suicide will not lead to increase in abuse of vulnerable people.

Peers are being urged to ditch a dangerous assisted suicide bill that could lead to more than 1,200 deaths a year. Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill has its committee stage in the House of Lords on Friday 7 November.

This is a joint call from disability rights campaign, Not Dead Yet and from Care Not Killing.

The two groups say that changing the law on assisted suicide would weaken protections for vulnerable people. They highlight the findings of a new poll from ComRes, which reveals high levels of concern among the British public around the proposed changes.

The poll found a clear majority believe that it is impossible to make a completely safe system.

Debating Assisted Suicide: 'Contempt for life with disability surrounds us'

This article was published by Access Magazine, a disability rights magazine in the UK.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE is the Spokesperson/Convener of the Not Dead Yet UK Campaign. Kevin was recently hired as the Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Advocates of assisted suicide say that it is for people who are terminally ill, not disabled people. But assisted suicide will not be confined to those dying imminently. Falconer’s Bill includes people with progressive conditions.

And just look at how the wealthy lobby for legalizing assisted suicide always use (or abuse) severely disabled people who are not terminally ill, to garner untutored public support for assisted suicide. Severely disabled people deeply grieving their losses with their newly discovered motor neurone disease, despairing of their futures, believing death is their only option.

The pro-assisted suicide lobby commissions polls that ask questions which are confusing or misleading. People believe they are voting in favour of an image they hold of a peaceful, painless death at home, surrounded by loving family. When they are shown the more realistic scenarios that such a law would bring about, their support falls away dramatically. According to a ComRes poll published on July 18th this year, 43% remain for, 43% decide against and the rest ‘don’t know’.

Inadequate protections

Disabled people do not currently receive adequate protection from either the Courts or the police. If there is not enough support made available to suicidal disabled people from disabled people’s organisations, that is generally because we are starved of resources. There are no celebrity millions for us; instead, we’re threatened out of existence by cuts, or else forced to work as volunteers on nil resources to resist this growing death cult.

At present, the Courts are not given to examining the suicidal feelings of disabled people. They, like the general public, attribute an individual’s desire to die to their disabilities, rather than to the circumstances of their lives – which could include the loss of a spouse, confinement to a nursing home, or the pressure of feeling that they are burdens on their families. They superficially conclude that the individual is not ‘suicidal’ – but also not treatable, nor deserving of support to live and love.

Disabled people and those with incurable chronic diseases have experienced a long history of persecution and genocide. It is too easily forgotten that during the 1930s, 200,000 people with disabilities were put to death by Nazi physicians who were inspired by contemporary euthanasia movements in England and the US, long before the racial genocide began.

People with visible disabilities have historically been forced to hide from the public gaze. Only a short while ago disabled people were routinely imprisoned in institutions. More recently, there has been an international rise in the frequency of hate crimes against people with disabilities. Contempt for life with disability surrounds us.

In this context, we should be granted greater protections for our lives, as a minority group at risk – not having what little protection from harm and attack we can still count on stripped away from us.

Further information about the Not Dead Yet UK Campaign can be found at: www.notdeadyetuk.org and on Twitter by following @notdeadyetuk

Not Dead Yet - UK ‘campaign’ against the assisted suicide bill in the British House of Lords.

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick - Not Dead Yet - UK.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

In the (British) House of Lords, another attempt to legalise assisted suicide/euthanasia was debated at 2nd reading stage July 18, 2014 through Lord Falconer’s ‘assisted dying’ Bill. It was rumoured that a vote would be forced and it was estimated, in advance of the debate, that speakers for the assisted suicide would outweigh those against by a 2:1 margin. On the day of the debate, neither turned out to be so. The Bill ‘passed’ to the committee stage without a vote, after ten hours of discussion in the chamber, but to our pleased surprise speakers were split about 50:50 for and against the Bill.

The Not Dead Yet personal letter-writing/email campaign had a real effect, even after the proponents’ lobby swamped the Lords’ postboxes. This reinforces my deeply felt personal belief that letters from people with disabilities potentially outweighs numerous letters from our opposition; especially if the letter expresses truths, exposes the dissembling of those who favour assisted suicide.

Our hope and expectation is that the Lords will kill the Bill at the committee stage. We have hope, but we will not rely on that hope alone to defeat the Bill.

Jane Campbell

We had some very significant success in the British media, most notably a complete u-turn in a major daily, the Guardian, whose editorial appeared on the morning of the debate, in time for it to be cited by some of the Lords in their speeches. The phrase ‘this would change the moral landscape’ was repeated more than once. 

We started the week less well than we finished. Top-heavy reporting by the BBC ITN, other TV and radio stations plus the print media provided lots of negative coverage in the week before the debate.

There were many significant media ‘hits’ during the week which changed the balance in a way we had not experienced before. (There is a long way to go to get real balance but we made some in-roads into the media and thus, public consciousness.) 

Jane Campbell spoke on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. 

Tanni Grey-Thompson

Tanni Grey-Thompson spoke to BBC1’s This Week about the reaction from some people to her disability, and how: 

‘In their eyes, my life is not worth living.’ 

Pam Franklin spoke about living with MND (a similar situation to Tony Nicklinson, communicating through a computer), saying she was ‘too nosy to want to die’ and was someone with MND who always has ‘another book to read, another film to see’. Her story was broadcast on the main BBC News bulletins of the eve of the debate.

The same evening ITV’s flagship programme Tonight, featured terminally ill people for and against the proposed law and had selections from a debate filmed earlier, in which I participated. The editor gave everyone fair time and I was afforded the last word, which was very helpful. It was also notable for the balance of ‘terminally ill people for and against’.

It was the Guardian editorial that morning which stunned us all. One of Britain’s biggest ‘broadsheet’ daily newspapers, the Guardian has consistently been pro-assisted suicide including some polemic verging on the vitriolic. The morning of the debate, it published an editorial which, although they used a stock photo of the Nicklinsons, was an extraordinary u-turn. It pointed out that Nicklinson could not have benefitted from the proposed law, using the headline Lord Falconer's bill sounds modest but it will redraw the moral landscape.

Liz Carr

BBC’s Fergus Walsh interviewed Not Dead Yet leaders at the protest outside the House of Lords and used Liz Carr’s contribution in the evening bulletin: she really nailed it.

That evening I did a Radio 5 Live (national radio) interview against Tom Curran of Exit and a Scottish GP Dr Kerr who had euthanized patients. On our side, Roger Symes plugged away at the creepy doctor. The interviewing journalist Stephen Nolan is not usually the most accommodating, but he gave me the last contributions which lasted more than five minutes answering his questions, so it was a good finale to the day.

For the purposes of this summary, I have only reported some of the most significant media ‘hits’. There were many others, and our work especially through social media was a major step forward this time.

Andrew Lloyd Weber changes his mind on Assisted Suicide.

By Wesley Smith, published on his blog on July 17, 2014.

Andrew Lloyd Weber might not still be here if assisted suicide had been legal in the UK. He wanted to die and almost was set to go to Switzerland. Now, he’s glad he didn’t. From theTelegraph story:

Lord Lloyd-Webber, the West End impresario, was so convinced he wanted to die last year that he took steps to join Dignitas, the Swiss assisted suicide clinic, he has disclosed. The composer said he now believes that taking such a step would have been “stupid and ridiculous” but that it was all he could think of amid a bout of deep depression triggered by the pain from a series of operations. 

He is among members of the Lords likely to oppose the bill tabled by Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, to legalise “assisted dying”, which will have its first parliamentary airing today. It came as Dominic Grieve, who until this week’s reshuffle was the Government’s chief law officer, said the proposals could open the door to a form of “legalised execution”. “It is not something that a civilised society should do,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

Baroness Jane Campbell: Assisted suicide could lure me to the grave.

Last Friday, the UK House of Lords debated the Falconer assisted suicide bill, a bill that would legalize assisted suicide in a similar way to the Oregon assisted suicide law in the US.

Jane Campbell

Sign the petition against the assisted suicide bill in Britain.

In an article published in the Daily Mail, it was reported that Baroness Jane Campbell who lives with spinal muscular atrophy told her peers that assisted suicide:

'offers no comfort to me - it frightens me.' 

'I did not ask it and I do not want it, but it is about me nevertheless.'

Baroness Campbell spoke about the difficult times in her life. She told the House of Lords:

that in moments of despair, she might be tempted to ask for assisted dying - and if the law changed, doctors would not stop her. 

'It frightens me because in periods of greatest difficulty I know I might be tempted to use it. It only adds to the burdens and challenges life holds for me.'

In response to the criticism that she would not qualify under this assisted suicide bill, Campbell stated:

'Before anyone disputes this, imagine that it is already law and that I ask for assistance to die. 

'Do your Lordships think that I would be refused? 

Tanni Grey-Thompson

You can be sure that there would be doctors and lawyers willing to support my right to die.'

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, refuted in her speech the comment that only 80 people die each year by assisted suicide in Oregon. Grey-Thompson, a paralympic star stated:

Oregon has only 3million people, if the same trend was replicated in the UK some 1,600 people a year could take their own lives in doctors’ surgeries or Dignitas-style clinics.

The Daily Mail article then reported on the speech by Lord Tebbit, whose wife Margaret was paralysed by an IRA bomb. Tebbit said that in moments of despair his wife has stated:

“I would be better dead so that you could get on with your life.”

Tebbit stated:

“I have no children but I have several vultures awaiting my death.” 

Theo Boer

This Bill will be a breeding ground for vultures, individual and corporate. It creates too much financial incentive for the taking of life.’

Last week, a Dutch ethicist, Dr Theo Boer wrote an article about how he has changed his mind concerning assisted suicide. Dr. Boer stated: 

‘Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely ever to go back in again.’

The House of Lords did not vote on the Falconer assisted suicide bill. The assisted suicide bill will likely receive further debate in the fall.

Links to similar articles:

• Public support for assisted suicide drops to 43% when arguments against are heard.
• Care Not Killing Alliance: Falconer bill is a recipe for the abuse of the elderly and disabled people.
• Dutch ethicist - "Assisted Suicide: Don't go There".
• Disability leader, Simon Stevens: Why I oppose assisted suicide.
• British Medical Association re-affirmed its opposition to assisted suicide.
• Jane Campbell: Why I oppose assisted suicide.
• Assisted suicide bill in Britain is fatally flawed.
• UK assisted suicide bill: 'Eligible patients may have years, even decades to live.

Public support for Assisted Suicide in the UK drops to 43% when arguments against are heard.

This article was written by Dr Peter Saunders and published on his blog on July 18.

Peter Saunders

By Dr Peter Saunders

There is ample poll data showing that the majority of the British public support legalising assisted suicide (AS) in principle.

The former Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now rebranded Dignity in Dying) claims a figure of 80% although I have previously argued that such levels of support are uncommitted, uninformed and unconvincing.

However, there has been very little poll data gauging public attitudes in light of the various empirical and rational arguments against AS. That is, until now.

An extraordinary new poll has demonstrated that public attitudes change dramatically once some of the key practical implications of AS are considered.

In a new Comres/CARE poll published today and reported by the Daily Telegraph respondents were presented with the following scenario:

‘A new Bill is due to be debated in the House of Lords which is designed to enable mentally competent adults in the UK who are terminally ill, and who have declared a clear and settled intention to end their own life, to be provided with assistance to commit suicide by self-administering lethal drugs. Two doctors would need to countersign their declaration and be satisfied that the person has a condition which cannot be reversed by treatment and is reasonably expected to die within 6 months. In principle would you agree or disagree with this proposal?’

73% agreed (38% strongly), 12% disagreed and 14% were in the ‘don’t know’ category.

So far there’s nothing that surprising. It would be odd for people not to be moved by some of the tragic stories of the ‘hard cases’ and to say they support a means of alleviating such suffering.

But then those who supported AS in principle were asked which of the following arguments would make them change their minds. Each statement below was randomised throughout the survey in order to assess which argument moved opinion the most.

The answers were truly astounding.

Overall 42% of those who originally supported the bill changed their mind on the basis of at least one of the arguments.

When these were added back into the original sample, aggregating all who opposed as a result of the arguments put to them, and incorporating all who still supported AS having heard each argument, they found the following:

43% support AS, 43% oppose it and 14% don’t know.

So hearing the arguments against AS causes support for AS to collapse from 73% to 43% - that is, to less than half!

Here are the arguments with the percentage change each cause on those who initially backed Falconer’s proposals.