More than 15,000 Canadians have died by euthanasia (MAiD) .

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I conservatively estimate that there has now been more than 15,000 (MAiD) euthanasia deaths in Canada since it was legalized.

On January 30, 2020 I published an article stating that, in Canada, there had been more than 5000 MAiD assisted deaths in 2019 and at least 13,000 assisted deaths since it was legalized. 

That article was written to correct the media who were reporting that there had been 6700 euthanasia deaths in Canada since legalization.

Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

On February 24, at the press conference announcing Bill C-7, the bill to expand euthanasia, the federal government estimated that there had been more than 13,000 assisted deaths, since legalization, with 5444 in 2019 and 4438 in 2018.

The Third Interim report on MAiD stated that there were 3714 reported assisted deaths up to December 31, 2017. Since the government estimated that there were 4438 in 2018 and 5444 in 2019, therefore I can estimate that 13,596 Canadians died by MAiD up to December 31, 2019.

The data indicates that the number of assisted deaths is continuing to increase but based on 2019 data I can state that there has been at least 1814 (more likely 2000) assisted deaths in 2020. Therefore as of April 30, 2020, there has been at least 15,410 euthanasia deaths.

This data does not account for the under-reporting that was uncovered in the Quebec euthanasia report.

The federal government is slow in releasing official assisted death statistics but we do have accurate 2019 data from Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Alberta.

According to the data from the Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner there were 1789 reported assisted deaths in 2019, 1499 in 2018, 841 in 2017 representing nearly a 20% increase in Ontario assisted deaths in 2019.

The new Ontario assisted death data indicates that there were 570 reported assisted deaths in the first three months of 2020 with 199 in March alone. The euthanasia rate is sadly increasing, even during the Covid-19 crisis.

Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

The Canadian government must reject Bill C-7 and begin the promised 5-year review of the euthanasia law with an open view to what is actually happening rather than continuing to expand euthanasia, making Canada the most permissive euthanasia regime in the world.

Do you have a personal euthanasia story? Sharing your story may help us prevent other euthanasia deaths. Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

Ontario MAiD (euthanasia) deaths increase during Covid-19 crisis.

Sign the Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link)

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner has released new data for MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths). In Ontario between June 17, 2016 and March 31, 2020, there have been 4888 reported assisted deaths with 199 reported assisted deaths in March 2020 alone.
 
In Ontario there were 1789 reported assisted deaths in 2019, 1499 in 2018, 841 in 2017, and 189 in 2016. 

The new data indicates that there were 570 reported assisted deaths in the first three months of the year with 199 in March alone. The euthanasia rate is sadly increasing.

Sign the Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link)

Parliament is currently debating Bill C-7, a bill to expand euthanasia in Canada. Bill C-7 amends the euthanasia law by eliminating the "terminal illness" requirement, allowing advanced requests for euthanasia, eliminating the 10 day waiting "reflection" period and it falsely claims to prohibit euthanasia for mental illness.

If Bill C-7 passes without amendments, it will give Canada the most extreme euthanasia law in the world and result in a greater increase in deaths by lethal injection.

A recent CBC Radio show by Duncan McCue, interviewed Stephanie Green, president of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers who explained how MAiD can be done on a patient with Covid-19. Green stated:

"I have provided for MAID on the same day that I've met someone on certain occasions," 

"It's not common … MAID is a process that requires rigorous procedure and safeguarding and is meant to be that way."

Green then explained that "MAID applications can be expedited if two assessing physicians agree a patient is at "imminent risk" of losing their capacity or life, they can forgo the typical 10 day reflection period required by law. Green then stated:

"If they're about to die, or we think they're going to die within 10 days, we actually can go ahead and waive that reflection period and move quicker,"

I recently reported on an article written by Globe and Mail reporter Kelly Grant stating that the Ottawa and Hamilton regions temporarily stopped providing euthanasia "MAiD services" during the Covid-19 pandemic. Grant wrote:

The Champlain Regional MAID Network, which serves Ottawa and the surrounding area, issued a notice on Wednesday that it was shutting down the service in hospitals and homes to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and to conserve health-care resources. 

Hamilton Health Sciences, a hospital network with 10 sites, has also stopped providing assisted dying within its walls.

It is possible that the MAiD (euthanasia) data will indicate a slowing trend in April 2020 due to Covid-19.

Do you have a personal euthanasia story? Sharing your story may help us prevent other euthanasia deaths. Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition  at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

Pressured to die by assisted death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Candice Lewis

Candice Lewis recently died a natural death.

In August 2016, Candice Lewis, who was 25, while receiving treatment at the hospital was pressured by a doctor to "request" an assisted death.

No one questions that Candice was very sick at the time, but as Candice's mother told CBC news, the doctor pressured her to request physician-assisted death. The article stated:

"His words were 'assisted suicide death was legal in Canada,'" she told CBC. "I was shocked, and said, 'Well, I'm not really interested,' and he told me I was being selfish."

Kevin Dunn interviewed Candice and her mother Sheila for the Fatal Flaws film. (Link to purchase Fatal Flaws) During the interview Sheila said:

Not once did she say to them, "I want to end my life." The doctor came in the next day after he told me about assisted suicide, stuck his face down in Candice's and said, "Do you know how sick you are?" When I got his eye contact we went out in the hallway and I told him, "Don't you ever pull something like that again."

How many situations, similar to Candice Lewis have occurred in Canada and either died by lethal injection or were so shocked by the experience of being pressured that they will not speak about it?

I have received emails and calls about people being pressured to die by MAiD. Recently I received this email from a care-giver stating:

Several weeks ago, in the space of a two week time period, I was made aware of four instances in which nursing staff [in hospitals] ... seemed to be initiating discussion of MAiD with family/friends, and, in the last instance, a patient, without any apparent prior reference to MAiD on the part of the patient.

During my Vancouver Island speaking tour, a man told a group how his mother, who required dialysis, was urged by healthcare "professionals" to ask for MAiD (euthanasia). He said that if he had not spoken to his mother, she may have died by euthanasia.

At the next talk a woman came up afterwards and shared that her father, who had significant health issues, was urged by healthcare "professionals" on several occasions to consider MAiD (euthanasia).

It appears that many doctors and nurses are urging patients to ask for MAiD.

This type of pressure, at the most vulnerable time in a person's life, will lead some people, who would never have otherwise considered death by lethal injection, an option. In fact, it is likely that many people have died by euthanasia after being urged by a doctor or a nurse to do so.

If you have a story or a concern, please share it. Knowledge and awareness will help others to resist euthanasia when they are pressured.

I urge you to be involved in the lives of those who you know and care for. When someone is pressured by a doctor or nurse to ask for an assisted death, you can make a difference in their lives by saying - NO, I care for you, I will not abandon you. 

Euthanasia is not the answer.

Candice Lewis has died a natural death RIP. Candice made a difference in the world.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Yesterday, Candice Lewis died a natural death. Candice made a difference in the world. (Link to her obituary)

We first learned about Candice and her mom Sheila in July 2017 when CBC Newfoundland published an article concerning the complaint by Sheila about Candice being pressured to ask for Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) while she was receiving medical treatment in August 2016. (Link)

An in-depth article was written by Stephen Roberts, for the Northern Pen concerning the complaint letter that Sheila, sent to the hospital. It stated:

Elson wrote that Heroux had taken her out into the hallway by Lewis’s hospital room to discuss physician-assisted death and advise her the option was legal in Canada. 

She alleges the doctor said he supported physician-assisted death for Lewis. 

“This left me dumbfounded and I told him it was something I did not want to consider,” she said.
She contends the doctor suggested she was being selfish and that she told him that she didn’t believe Lewis was able to fully comprehend what was being suggested. 

She says Lewis could hear the conversation from her room and it was causing emotional distress for them both. 

“I am still very concerned about this, it is always on my mind. I am emotionally exhausted. I see that it has been also very stressful for Candice and one of my main reasons for writing this letter is that I don’t want any other family to have to go through this,” Elson wrote.

We learned more in August 2017 when Roberts wrote a follow up article for the Northern Pen indicating that Candice's health had improved (Link).

Candice and Kevin

Kevin Dunn then visited Candice and Sheila for the filming of the Fatal Flaws film. After returning from Newfoundland we published this article and film clip.

Yesterday Kevin published a tribute to Candice on his blog (Link).

Since that time, Kevin and I have continued communicating with Candice and Sheila. They have made a difference in the lives of so many.

How many cases, similar to Candice Lewis have occurred in Canada and either died by lethal injection or were so shocked by the experience of being pressured that they have not spoken about it? Thank you Candice for sharing your story.

My deepest condolences go to Sheila and the family. Sheila loved and cared for her daughter Candice. Sheila told me that her heart is broken. 

Candice lived her life and will be remembered for how she helped to change the world.

Euthanasia (MAiD) is not an essential service during Covid-19 crisis.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kelly Grant, the health reporter for the Globe and Mail, reported on March 27 that at least two regions in Ontario have stopped doing euthanasia during the Covid-19 crisis since it is not an essential service and the need to conserve healthcare services.

According to Grant, the Ottawa and Hamilton regions have temporarily stopped providing euthanasia "MAiD services" during the Covid-19 pandemic. Grant wrote:

The Champlain Regional MAID Network, which serves Ottawa and the surrounding area, issued a notice on Wednesday that it was shutting down the service in hospitals and homes to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and to conserve health-care resources. 

Hamilton Health Sciences, a hospital network with 10 sites, has also stopped providing assisted dying within its walls.

Grant reported that in the Hamilton region:

Several of the hospital network’s MAID providers have already been redeployed and elective procedures of all kinds are being delayed to make room for an expected surge of coronavirus patients.

While in Ottawa, Grant reported that the Champlain Regional Medical Assistance in Dying Network sent out the following bulletin:

“After careful consideration of the principles to prevent COVID-19 transmission and conserve health-care resources, and in alignment with the provincial ramp-down of elective services, effective immediately, we will not be providing community MAiD procedures or in-patient procedures at The Ottawa Hospital,” 

“Additionally, our partners at Home and Community Care will not be in a position to provide nursing support for independent practitioners who wish to provide MAiD in the community.”

Killing people by lethal injection is not healthcare. Canada's MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) law creates an exception in the criminal code to homicide. Since it is a criminal code statute it is technically not healthcare, therefore it cannot be an essential healthcare service.

The euthanasia clinic in the Netherlands also announced that it has temporarily shut-down due to healthcare priorities during the Covid-19 crisis.

But in Victoria BC and the Toronto region euthanasia (MAiD) has been deemed an essential service. Grant reports:

Stefanie Green, a Victoria doctor and the president of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP,) said the health authority on Vancouver Island has also deemed assisted dying an essential service.

Killing is not healthcare.

Death doctors use Covid-19 crisis to permit "aid-in-dying" via telehealth.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The assisted suicide lobby are actively promoting the approval of assisted suicide and euthanasia via telehealth. The death lobby are using the coronavirus to achieve two main goals, that being, allowing the approval of lethal prescriptions via telemedicine or telehealth and the expansion of assisted suicide to include euthanasia.

If allowed, a person could be prescribed lethal drugs for assisted suicide without ever being examined by a doctor.

According a committee of the newly formed American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, (death doctors) (chaired by Lonny Shavelson, a California doctor who only offers death) the coronavirus crisis requires allowing approvals by telehealth. The committee stated:

In light of the coronavirus crisis, a committee has been convened to establish recommendations pertaining to the use of telemedicine to evaluate patients’ requests to consider medical aid in dying. (See below for members of the policy committee.)

For the purposes of this policy statement, “telemedicine” and/or “telehealth” refers to a visual and verbal patient contact by electronic means, without an in-person visit. 

Long before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, many established aid-in-dying clinicians used telemedicine visits to evaluate select aspects of terminally ill patients’ requests to consider medical aid in dying. Given the need to limit in-person contacts to decrease the speed of contagion of coronavirus, an increased use of telemedicine for select aspects of aid-in-dying evaluations and care is recommended.

The committee of death doctors concluded:

The Committee concludes that there is nothing inherent in an aid-in-dying request that prohibits or discourages the use of telemedicine.

The death doctors are using the coronavirus to achieve their goal and they have no intention of going back to examining patients, once the coronavirus crisis passes. 

It is important to recognize the language used by the death doctors. "Medical Aid in Dying" (MAiD) is a term that is used by the death lobby for euthanasia and assisted suicide. The American death lobby are trying to extend assisted suicide legislation to include euthanasia or lethal injection. Most new assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be.

Recently I reported that another death lobby group was using the coronavirus to promote assisted suicide via telehealth.

This is not a new plan. The 2019 New Mexico assisted suicide bill included a telehealth provision and a recent bill to expand assisted suicide in Hawaii includes a telehealth provision.State regulators should not take this group seriously. These are death doctors promoting more death. In the case of Shavelson, he does not provide medical treatment only death.

Assisted suicide for mental illness: Why safeguards won't work.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr John Maher

Impact Ethics published the most recent article by the renowned psychiatrist, Dr John Maher, who argues that euthanasia for mental illness should not be permitted and safeguards will not work.

Last month Dr Maher was published by CBC News explaining why legalizing (MAiD) for mental illness was misguided.

Maher explains that there are limits to individual autonomy and for good reason. He states:

MAiD advocates sing a siren song of absolute individual autonomy. It is claimed: i) the state should not interfere with a capable person’s choice to complete suicide, and; ii) the state should help with such suicides since people are entitled to services (i.e. MAiD) that other (dying) citizens already receive. But, caring societies have long held that respecting autonomous choice has its limits, especially with: brain malformation, damage, or disease; childhood; and harm to self or others.

Maher outlines four key reasons why safeguards concerning MAiD for mental illness won't work. He states:

1. Review of the assisted suicide requests by two (or more) independent psychiatrists (preferably with special expertise in the salient psychiatric disorder). 

Whether for or against assisted suicide for mental illness it is clear that intact decisional capacity is necessary for providing informed consent for MAiD. 

Note, however, that if a psychiatrist does not know the patient over the long term, and is not within a functional therapeutic relationship, it can be very difficult to assess decisional capacity accurately. 

Patients commonly “hold it together” during the snapshot afforded by a 1-2 hour capacity assessment by an independent psychiatrist, even against a hidden backdrop of profound decisional impairment. “Ruling out” who should not be eligible for MAiD is easy (with extreme psychosis, for example). “Ruling in” is fraught with clinician-to-clinician variability and value judgements. Inter-rater capacity assessment reliability is only 65%. The presumption that all psychiatrists can sort out these grey areas with aplomb is naïve. Capacity assessments require training, experience, and sophisticated craft knowledge. This variability means there is a significant risk that many patients will be judged to qualify for MAiD when they actually lack the capacity to consent to it. 

Of greater concern are the psychiatrists who would be willing to kill a lot of patients in the name of compassion. The experience of the Benelux countries unequivocally illustrates pro-suicide biases among a small number of psychiatrists whom patients actively seek out to get the suicide outcome they desire. The risk with this group of psychiatrists is, again, the over-use of MAiD in cases where patients should be considered ineligible. 

2. Require that the patient accept more or different treatment, and simultaneously impose a time delay (e.g. 6 months) before fulfilling the assisted suicide request to allow time for further reflection, added support provision, or to see if the different treatment approach reduces suffering. 

Standard psychiatric treatment protocols are not of short duration (months to years), and entail multiple treatment trials. The requirement that the patient have an “irremediable medical condition”, as specified by existing MAiD legislation, means the patient has already been receiving longer term treatment that she or he considers inadequate. This supposed safeguard would not filter out anyone who should be ineligible for MAiD, since everyone with a serious psychiatric condition that has yet to be remedied (even when ultimately remediable) will meet this point-in-time requirement. 

3. Require an eligibility criterion of a “non-ambivalent decision”. 

Unwavering certainty would self-evidently be a minimum legal requirement for any provision of MAiD. But a sustained and clear wish to die does not mean it is a rational wish. For example, the wish might arise out of depression-induced despair. Some propose watering this requirement down to a “well-considered decision”. 

This weaker position has questionable grounding in the realities of brain science, decisional variability, and the profound messiness engendered by hopelessness, cognitive distortions, and suicidal symptomatology. A person may have arrived at a “well-considered decision” even while beset with one or more of these symptoms. 

4. Require a “lack of a reasonable treatment alternative” criterion. 

What counts as “reasonable” depends on the perspective. A psychiatrist may believe that there is a reasonable treatment alternative, while the patient does not want that treatment. In such a situation, would the patient be denied MAiD? Probably not, given that current MAiD legislation protects patient treatment refusals. And so, some people who could get better will die.

Maher concludes his article by stating that their is a lack of availability of effective mental health care and allowing euthanasia (MAiD) for people with mental illness is a failure of the governments duty to care.

John Maher is an assertive community treatment (ACT) psychiatrist, President of the Ontario Association for ACT and FACT, and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health

Press Release: A growing number of Canadian physicians are being bullied to participate in MAiD.

PRESS RELEASE 

Alert from a growing number of Canadian physicians 

“We are being bullied to participate in Medical Assistance in Dying”

Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

Montréal, March 9, 2020 - The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia has received reports that unwilling physicians are being pressured and bullied to participate in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD): euphemism for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Fearing reprisals, physicians have asked that no information that could identify them be disclosed.

The pressure has been intense for many physicians, especially amongst palliative specialists, some leaving their profession even before this latest development. Descriptions were made of toxic practice environments and fear of discipline by medical regulators.

“The anxiety, fear, and sadness surrounding my work bled into my family life, and I ultimately felt that I could not manage practicing palliative care at this stage of my life.”
(Former palliative care physician, March 2020)

In different locations across Canada over the last months there has been a change in certain hospital MAiD policies. The change seems intended to provoke crisis or confrontation: to force objecting physicians to facilitate MAiD, or to have to refuse — and face contrived allegations of “obstructing access.” Reports consistently focus on the MAiD providers refusing to accept full responsibility for the death of the patient and forcing other physicians to share responsibility for the death. If the physician asks to withdraw from care and allow the MAiD provider to take over as before, the MAiD provider resists assuming the natural pattern of care.

The reports we are hearing from distressed physicians describe deliberate disruption of arrangements that were previously working satisfactorily and that had permitted patients to have access to MAiD while still allowing for conscience objectors to not be involved in facilitating the patient’s death. This bullying and betrayal of collegial relationships can poison practice environments and compromise patient care. Such behavior should not be tolerated by health care administrators in Canada.

Canadian physicians having similar stories of bullying are encouraged to contact the Physicians’ Alliance by email: info@collectifmedecins.org.

Contact:
Charmine Francis
Coordinator
438-938-9410
info@collectifmedecins.org

Canadian doctor: Kids benefit from seeing euthanasia.

This article was published by Mercatornet on March 2, 2020.

By Michael Cook

Michael Cook

Bedside gatherings at Canadian euthanasia deaths are normally an adults-only affair. Of course we’re not privy to most of them, but occasionally a journalist describes the last moments of an elderly man or woman in a magazine feature. Sometimes there’s a party, glasses of champagne, hilarity -- until the doctor arrives. The friends and relatives gather around the bed while the doctor administers a lethal injection.

In fact, most of these deaths are of people well over 65. Very few are of an age to be leaving youngsters behind. It is their children or grown grandchildren who are with them in their last moments.

What about people with young children? One experienced MAiD doctor suggests that young children will benefit from becoming involved.

In a blog entry at a University of British Columbia site, Dr Susan Woolhouse, who has been involved in some 70 “assisted deaths”, says “instinct told me that involving children in the MAID process of their loved one was possibly one of the most important and therapeutic experiences for a child. My past experiences during my palliative care rotations reassured me that children could benefit from bearing witness to a loved one’s death. Why would MAID be any different?”

She gives some tips about how to explain the process of dying to young children:

Assuming that children are given honest, compassionate and non-judgmental information about MAID, there is no reason to think that witnessing a medically assisted death cannot be integrate as a normal part of the end of life journey for their loved one. If the adults surrounding them normalize MAID, so will the children.

“These conversations can easily be had with children as young as 4,” she says.

Dr Woolhouse estimates that between 6 and 7 percent of MAiD deaths are of people under 55. As the numbers grow, “this will result in more children being impacted by the assisted death of a loved one.”

This is how she would explain euthanasia to a child:

“In Canada, when someone has an illness that will cause their body to die, they can wait for this to happen or they can ask a doctor help. The doctor or nurse uses a medication that stops the body from working and causes the body to die. This is done in a way that isn’t painful … 

“I am going to give your [loved one] medication over a period of about ten minutes. This medication will make her very look very tired and then she will very quickly go into a coma. This means that she will no longer be able to hear, see or feel any pain. You might hear strange breathing sounds, however these do not cause her any pain. Her skin will get colder and maybe even change colour. She will stop moving her body. Her heart will eventually stop beating and this means that her body has died. When a body dies, it can no longer see, feel pain, or hear. It can’t ever be fixed.”

I wonder if a child will find this explanation convincing. The doctor will not be around to answer her questions as she becomes a teenager, a young adult, and a parent. One researcher found that, years afterwards, some children still described the death of a pet as “the worst day of their lives.” How much worse will it feel to remember the day that your mother or father was put down?

Dr Woolhouse’s brief essay leaves some questions up in the air. The obvious question is “where is Dad now?” She can’t offer the child the comfort of an afterlife. Dad isn’t anywhere anymore; he’s just dead.

In her description of her hypothetical patient’s last hours, it’s clear that he is not suffering unbearably, at least at that moment. Why, the child is bound to ask, did Dad want to leave me? Why did he choose to die and leave me an orphan?

But Dr Woolhouse is right about one thing: if you want to normalise euthanasia, what better marketing device could there be than photos of little kids watching her give a lethal injection?

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet

BC Delta Hospice challenges closure over government’s pro-euthanasia policy

Petition: Hospice Organizations Must Not Be Forced to do euthanasia (Link)

Angelina Ireland

Delta Hospice, said the Fraser Health Authority and the British Columbia Minister of Health abruptly cancelled the Hospice’s contract on Tuesday, February 25, without even acknowledging or responding to the hospice’s offer to a reduced level of government financing of the facility by $750,000 per year in order to meet the 50% funding level for exemption from providing MAiD.

“The actions of the Ministry reveal that the issue of MAiD vs. palliative care is an agenda-driven policy rather than one that ensures access to skilled and compassionate palliative care for eligible patients in distress, and their families,” she said. “And it’s all about dollars. It is easier and cheaper for the government to provide euthanasia rather than continue with palliative care. Basically, they are saying that no palliative care facility in BC has a right to exist unless it also provides euthanasia.”

Faced with the government’s decision and refusal to consider other options such as decreased provincial funding, Ms. Ireland said the hospice will look at all of its legal and other options to continue to exist and serve patients and families in their final days, as they have always done.

The decision is particularly baffling, she said, since access to MAiD for those who request it is available at many locations in the lower mainland, including Delta Hospital right next door to the hospice. That, in her mind, reinforces the view that this is not about patients or families, but rather about a social policy agenda. 

“MAiD is a separate public health care stream, distinct and apart from palliative care. If the government wants to open MAiD facilities that’s their option, but they must not be allowed to download it onto the backs of private palliative care facilities.”

“Palliative care physicians and nurses believe in the philosophy of specialty palliative care and practice as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), which maintains that palliative care provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms and which affirms life and regards death as a normal process. At no point does WHO include euthanasia as an aspect of palliative care!”

Forced closure of the facility ignores the fact that this is a privately owned hospice built on land leased from the government, employs more than fifty people and has contributed significantly to BC’s public health care system.

“This is an invasion of the historic medical discipline of palliative care. The Canadian model is respected around the world. The government and the health authority are running roughshod over that principle and reputation.”

Ms. Ireland expressed hope that “even at this late date” Fraser Health Authority and the BC Ministry of Health will come to the table and discuss the issues, including the financial offer. “Our deepest concern is with those patients and families who have entrusted their final days to us. We want to make sure those days are filled with comfort and peace. That is still our goal.”

The Ministry and the Authority have both publicly stated they plan to take control of the premises currently occupied by the Hospice. The Delta Hospice Society built the Irene Thomas Hospice without taxpayer funds, at the cost of approximately $9,000,000. The Society has operated the Irene Thomas Hospice for 10 years, providing more than 700,000 hours of volunteer labour and $30 million to the public health care system. For the government to step in and seize this private property is “a scandalous appropriation of private assets,” said Ireland.

On Saturday April 4, a Rally for the Delta Hospice will be held in front of the Legislative Buildings at noon. Speakers include Dr. Margaret Cottle (palliative care physician) and Dr. Will Johnston (family physician and obstetrician), Angelina Ireland, President of the Delta Hospice along with MP Tamara Jansen and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

-30-

For further information, contact: 
Angelina Ireland. President Delta Hospice
irelandangelina@gmail.com

Canadian euthanasia study offers more questions than answers.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A study examining MAID data from Ontario, the largest province in Canada, reports confirms much of what we knew already about euthanasia/assisted suicide deaths worldwide, but the data actually opens questions about the use/misuse of euthanasia in Canada.

Article: Euthanasia deaths rise quickly in Ontario. Nearly 1800 reported assisted deaths in 2019 (Link).

The data indicates that many of those who died by euthanasia were not terminally ill and had decided to die by lethal injection rather than live in a nursing home / institutional setting.

The lead study author, Dr James Downar, is a founder of the Dying with Dignity physicians advisory council and a long-time euthanasia promoter. 

This study will be used to assure politicians that Canada's euthanasia law can be expanded without fear of negative effects to vulnerable groups. It will also be used to undermine the resistance of palliative care doctors to euthanasia.

The data in this study was obtained from the euthanasia reports submitted to the Chief Coroner of Ontario. The reports are submitted by the doctors or nurse practitioners who lethally injected the person. This data was submitted, in a self-reporting system, to justify the act of euthanasia.

Since doctors don't self-report controversial decisions, it is unlikely that comments from these reports will uncover abuse.

Kelly Grant, writing for the Globe and Mail newspaper reported:

Patients who choose medically assisted death are wealthier, younger, more likely to be married and less likely to live in long-term care than those who die naturally, according to a major study of assisted dying in Canada’s most populous province.

The media suggests that this study proves that euthanasia does not negatively effect people who are poor or vulnerable, but in fact this study simply confirms what we have always known that people who are white, wealthy and worried are more likely to die an assisted death.

The study examined the data from 2241 reports from the euthanasia deaths in Ontario between June 17, 2016 and October 31, 2018.

Grant reports on the data in the study:

Patients who received an assisted death were more likely to be wealthy, with 24.9 per cent of MAID recipients earning enough to be in the highest of five income brackets. By contrast, 15.6 per cent of patients who died naturally were in the top income bracket. 

The study found that Ontario MAID recipients were, on average, two-and-a-half years younger when they died, and less likely to have been living in an institution, usually a nursing home, before they died. 

Of those who died naturally, 28 per cent lived in institutional settings, while only 6.3 per cent of MAID recipients did. 

The data in the study indicates that those who died by euthanasia died at age 74.4 (average) whereas those who died a natural death died at age 77 (average). 

Why are people dying by euthanasia 2.6 years younger than those who die a natural death? 

Why are people who die by euthanasia less likely to live in an institution (nursing home etc).

The data suggests that many of those who died by euthanasia were not terminally ill and decided to die by lethal injection rather than live in a nursing home / institutional setting.

Canada's euthanasia law stated that: natural death is reasonably foreseeable, but the law did not define this. It appears that most doctors had a wide interpretation of natural death being reasonably foreseeable.

Those who died by euthanasia stated that they were experiencing physical suffering (99.5%) of the time and psychological suffering (96.4%) of the time. The Canadian law states that physical or psychological suffering "is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable." which is completely subjective.

The study states that:

Psychiatric consultations were performed in 6.2% of cases. In 4.3% of cases, the MAiD recipient had been found ineligible for MAiD on a previous request.

Considering the conditions that people may experience as they approach death, it is surprising that only 6.2% of the MAID deaths had a psychiatric consultation.

The data indicates that people who died by euthanasia had access to palliative care (74.4%) of the time suggesting that people are not asking to be killed due to lack of alternatives.

Grant reported that Ebru Kaya, a Toronto palliative care specialist questioned this assertion:

...“They use this blanket term. Palliative care providers could mean anything. The MAID assessor who is also a palliative care physician may use that clinical encounter to assess for MAID as a palliative care encounter, but the two are very different.”

Similar to previous studies, this study examines data from reports submitted by doctors and nurse practitioners who did the lethal injection. There are no interviews with patients, before they died, to determine why are they asked for death. There are no "third party" reports to ensure that the "letter of the law" was followed.

We do not know why people are dying 2.6 years earlier than those who died a natural death.

It is likely that many of the people were not terminally ill but facing the dilemma of having to live in a long-term care institution because their health condition required care.

I suggest that this study proves that people with disabilities are right. Canadians are deciding that death is preferable to living with a disability.

Man who filled out federal government's MAID survey 68 times questions its validity

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week I reported that the Canadian (MAID) euthanasia consultation questionnaire was a sham and the data was unreliable.

Marian Klowak reported for CBC News that she interviewed one man who filled-out the questionnaire 68 times and questioned the validity of the survey. Klowak reported:

Ken wanted to know how far he could push the virtual envelope — so he filled out a federal government survey on medical assistance in dying 68 times. 

Ken, whose name the CBC isn't publishing because he fears threats or harassment, decided last month to see whether he could fill out the online MAID survey more than once. 

Ken took screen shots of 50 of the 68 surveys he filled out, with dates and times, as proof. 

He even filled the survey out on Jan. 28, a day after it was supposed to close, he said. 

"I wanted to see how far this could go without being shut down," he said.

Curtis Brown with Probe Research in Winnipeg told Klowak:

"A public consultation survey like this one is designed to get people's feedback and it is quite open and people have a lot of opportunities to weigh in," he said. 

"That means they may respond more than once if they really feel passionate about a particular issue." 

The other kind of survey is statistically valid, questioning a number of people and making sure that group reflects the larger population.

The Justice Department told Klowak that the questionnaire was more of a consultation and not a survey. Ken questioned whether or not 300,000 people actually participated in the questionnaire, as claimed by the Justice Department.

Klowak interviewed Jim Cowan, the chair of the euthanasia lobby group, Dying with Dignity who stated:

I am concerned people could respond more than once. I believe if you are going to do polling and having consultations, you want to make sure they are as active and reflective as they can be," Cowan said. 

"If a few people did vote more than once, that doesn't affect the validity of the overall result."

Alex Schadenberg

Klowak also interviewed Alex Schadenberg (myself) from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition stated:

"The data in this survey was unreliable because it did not control the number of times a person could respond," he said. 

"On top of that, quite a few of our supporters refused to fill it out because when they opened up the questionnaire, they felt a lot of the questions were not written in a neutral manner."

Whether or not the Justice Ministry intentionally enabled people to vote 68 times on the "MAID" consultation the questions were written in a biased manner, people refused to participate in the consultation because of the wording of the questions and the Justice Minister claims that the consultation proves that Canadians want euthanasia expanded.

I conclude that the Canadian (MAID) euthanasia consultation questionnaire was a sham and the data was unreliable.

Canadian MAID (euthanasia) online consultation questionnaire was a sham and the data is unreliable.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On January 14, I wrote an article urging EPC supporters to participate in the Canadian Department of Justice Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) consultation questionnaire. In my article I stated:

The language of the consultation questionnaire is not great, nonetheless, the questionnaire does allow you to leave further comments.

Alex Schadenberg

On January 15, I published a guide to answering the Canadian MAID euthanasia questionnaire. I am pleased to report that more than 18,000 different people used the guide.

The online consultation is now closed and the Department of Justice has stated that 280,000 Canadians participated in the online consultation. 

Here is my experience with the process.

The online consultation questionnaire was a sham.

Many of the questions implied an outcome. It is a sham to ask people to complete a questionnaire when some of the questions are designed to provide a predetermined outcome.

For instance, Question 2 asked about safeguards. Question 2a asked:

A different reflection period (currently a 10-day reflection period) between the submission of a person’s written request for MAID and receiving MAID.

The answers to this question lacked meaning because they didn't indicate whether it is important to maintain the waiting period, increase the waiting period or remove the waiting period. In other words, the data is useless.

The other (Question 2) safeguard questions assume that the participant supports MAID.

Once again, the only good part of the consultation questionnaire is that it provided a box (500 characters) that enabled the participant to offer their concerns or thoughts.

The online consultation questionnaire was fraudulent.

After encouraging our supporters to participate in the consultation questionnaire, I began to receive emails stating that the website kicked them out as they completed the questionnaire. I simply urged these people to try again.

The second complaint was far more of an issue. Several of our supporters indicated that the consultation website enabled them to complete the questionnaire more than once. One person contacted me stating that he had completed the questionnaire more than 50 times from the same computer.

I did not encourage this nor did I tell others about this problem. I only encouraged our supporters to participate in the questionnaire that was questionable to begin with. 

If one of my supporters completed the questionnaire more than 50 times, how many euthanasia supporters did the same?

The Department of Justice stated that 280,000 people completed the questionnaire. Since the website did not prevent people from participating multiple times they have no idea how many people actually participated and the data collected in the online consultation is unreliable.

If the government wanted to do a proper consultation it would have asked clear questions that were written in a neutral manner and enabled people, who oppose killing, to answer in that manner. 

Since some of the questions implied support for euthanasia many of our supporters refused to participate.

Question 2a concerning the 10 day "reflection period" lacked meaning and is therefore null and void. Based on the online questionnaire, the government cannot conclude that the questionnaire provided data for a policy to: maintain, extend, or remove the waiting period.

EPC asked our supporters to participate in the online consultation questionnaire.

Other than the odd story, the media and the government have ignored the failures of Canada's euthanasia law, even though there are several key problems and abuses of the law.

If you have any comments or concerns, email me at: alex@epcc.ca

For further information please read some of these articles:

• Historical: Canadian Senate passed euthanasia law in time for summer break (Link).
• Approximately 5000 Canadians died by assisted death in 2019 and 13,000 assisted deaths since legalization (Link).
• Ontario euthanasia deaths are rising quickly (Link).
• UN Disability rights envoy urges changes to Canada's euthanasia law (Link).
• Québec court expands euthanasia law by striking down the terminal illness requirement (Link).
• Physically healthy depressed man died by euthanasia in BC (Link).
• Ontario doctor experiences abuse of euthanasia law (Link).
• Québec Fourth Interim Euthanasia Report, 13 deaths did not comply with the law (Link).
• BC Health Minister orders Delta Hospice to do euthanasia by February 3 (Link).