Assisted suicide lobby promotes no treatment during Covid-19 crisis.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Spectator published an excellent article, on May 6, by Michael Wee, the education and research officer at the Anscombe Bioethics Centre. The article concerns the push by the assisted suicide lobby for people, with certain medical conditions, to agree to refuse all medical treatment. Wee writes:

... alarm bells should be ringing that an organisation called ‘Compassion in Dying’ has been offering advice on how to make advance decisions. (The clue’s in the name: it was founded by its more well-known sister organisation, Dignity in Dying, which campaigns for the legalisation of assisted suicide.)

Back in 2014, concerns were raised by disability campaigners when Compassion in Dying received £1 million in lottery funding for an outreach project on advance decisions. Compassion in Dying later reported that its approach would ‘save money in the long-term’ by ensuring people did not get unwanted treatment.

More recently, the organisation has rolled out a special coronavirus page on refusing treatment, with a format almost identical to the gov.uk information pages on driving licences or tax returns. This seems highly unusual for a registered charity, and potentially misleading.

The danger with this approach is that it is misleading and during the Covid-19 crisis it results in the denial of life-saving treatment, based on discriminatory assumptions, when the treatment is beneficial. Wee states:

Follow the coronavirus page and it leads you to its bespoke advance decision pack, where the template form directs a person to consider refusing all life-sustaining treatment in the event of whichever condition one chooses to include. First on the list is 'any type of dementia'.

The message is clear: people are asked to judge whether life with a certain condition or disability is worth living. Coronavirus, Parkinson’s, or stroke – the question is the same, regardless of one’s chances of survival. This cannot be less egregious than the actions of those two unfortunate GP surgeries. It is almost assisted suicide by the backdoor.

The philosophy of the assisted suicide lobby negatively affects people with disabilities and people with other vulnerable conditions. Wee explains:

Paralympic gold medallist Baroness Grey-Thompson once wrote that legalising assisted suicide would ‘exacerbate the assumption that because there may [be] some things I cannot do, everything must be negative’. Such an attitude can easily go on to influence vulnerable people.

Promoting blanket refusals of treatment has the same, pernicious effect of promoting a blanket dismissal of life with disability. And no one should be using the coronavirus crisis to encourage such thinking.

Purchase the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to protect your life to assure that you will receive beneficial treatment or care, giving you the power to decide. (Link).

People sign a "no treatment" advanced decisions document out of fear of lingering on excessive life-saving or preserving treatments. A blanket no treatment directive results in a greater concern that you will be denied beneficial treatment and basic care that is not excessive or burdensome. Watch out what you sign.

Covid-19, Triage guidelines and nursing home deaths.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nursing home residents, with Covid-19, may be experiencing discrimination by being denied beneficial life-saving treatment. It appears that some nursing homes are not transferring residents to the hospital, even when treatment is available. Some of these decisions should be considered elder abuse.

The disability movement is also concerned that people with disabilities are being denied medical treatment.

I understand that there are times when the person is nearing death and it is not reasonable to transfer the person to the hospital. I also understand that there are times when the hospital lacks the treatment capacity to accept the elderly person. I am concerned that treatable elderly people are not receiving treatment, even when there is treatment capacity.

I was interviewed by OneNewsNow about an article that I wrote concerning the Covid-19 triage guidelines developed by Dr James Downar, the former chair of the Physicians Advisory Council for Dying with Dignity, a euthanasia lobby group. OneNewsNow reported:

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells OneNewsNow one of the problems is that if a hospital ICU is near capacity, then certain people would not receive medical treatment.

"Basically if a hospital, due to the COVID-19 crisis, [if] the ICU is full, then anybody who … has a medical condition [and] is less likely to recover, or they're over a certain age, they would simply not be given medical treatment," Schadenberg explains. 

But hospitals with a less populated ICU would treat them, and hospitals who are full could transfer patients to facilities that have beds available.

I continued by commenting about my concerns about the growing deaths of elderly people in nursing homes. I stated:

So Schadenberg is mainly concerned about elderly people in Ontario nursing homes

"What we've seen based on these triage protocols is that the decision is not to transfer these people to a hospital, even if they have a significant condition, that is treatable," he reports. "So what you're finding is somebody who's living in a nursing home … if they come down with COVID-19 … they're basically only cared [for] in that nursing home, which is very limiting." 

He says that means they are more likely to die.

Chris Aung-Thwin reported for the National Post that Theresa Tam, Canada's chief public health officer stated that:

the spread of the virus in care homes has been at the root of half of the more than 700 deaths across the country.

Covid-19 nursing home deaths is a national problem. Adrian Humphries reported for the National Post that: 

In Quebec, a police investigation is underway after 31 residents at a care home in Dorval died under what Quebec Premier Francois Legault alleged was “gross negligence.”

Pinecrest Nursing Home in Bobcaygeon, Ont., saw 29 COVID-19 linked deaths in its 65-bed home. In Toronto, 22 residents with COVID-19 died at Seven Oaks.

Eighteen residents at Lynn Valley Care Centre in North Vancouver died with COVID-19; 10 at Almonte Country Haven in Ottawa.

And on and on and on, in communities large and small.

Some would suggest that the large number Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes is due to the age or other health condition of those who died. I am convinced that there are other factors.

Some treatment protocols dictate that residents in a nursing home will not be transferred to the hospital, even when the hospital has the treatment capacity to care for them, leaving them far more likely to die.
 
Many residents or their families have stated, in a health care directive, that they would not want treatment or that they would not want to be sent to the hospital for treatment and that they would only want "comfort care" measures.

Order the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to protect your life (Link).

It is likely that some of the nursing home residents who died by Covid-19 may have survived with treatment. This is a form of discrimination, agism and elder abuse.

Elderly people need patient advocates. If your parent needs beneficial life-saving treatment that could enable recovery, then you need to demand equal treatment.

These are life and death decisions.

Protect Your Life: Life Protecting Power of Attorney.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

EPC has recently asked our supporters to contact us with personal stories concerning euthanasia or assisted suicide. Among the stories several people have commented on end-of-life medical decisions that were made against the will of the family.

You need to protect your life with the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care. (Link).

Most jurisdictions have a basic template that all lawyers use. In most jurisdictions the 'template' power of attorney for personal care (living will) document is in fact dangerous and could result in basic care being withheld or withdrawn. 

This is why the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 + taxes. (Link)

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney requires the person you appoint to make medical decisions that uphold your values. It protects you from euthanasia and assisted suicide and it defines the treatment/care decisions that you would want, in the event that you are unable to make medical decisions for yourself.

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney also gives you the piece of mind that EPC will help you if your expressed wishes are ignored or if a hospital or doctor pressures or attempts to impose medical treatment decisions upon you.

Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link) or contact EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

Canadian Alzheimer’s Society Endorses Euthanasia by Advance Directive

This article was published by the National Review online on October 17, 2019

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

Canada is debating whether to permit euthanasia by advance directive, meaning, allowing people to sign instructions requiring they be killed by their doctor once they reach a determined level of incompetence. In other words, a former self will be given the power to order their current self dispatched — even, presumably, if the current self is not suffering and may not want to die.

Dementia Advocacy Canada is promoting euthanasia.

We can tell which way that debate is going with the Alzheimer’s Society Canada endorsing such a legal change. From the Society’s press release:

People living with dementia are individuals — first and foremost. They have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to participate in decisions about their life and care. We respect the right of all persons with dementia to advocate for their individual best interests, including advocating for MAID [medical assistance in dying, e.g., lethal injection] through advance requests.

So, in Canada, helpless people with dementia are about to become a killable caste with the cooperation of an organization that supposedly advocates for their welfare.

And if incompetent patients, then why not also allow the killing of sick children? Oh yeah, that’s coming too — perhaps without requiring parental consent.

Woman pressured to approve death by sedation / dehydration for her Aunt.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

Today I spoke with a woman who is the Power of Attorney for her 89 year-old aunt, who is currently in a Toronto hospital. The niece called EPC because she is upset about the lack of care that her Aunt is receiving.

Her Aunt went to the hospital a few weeks ago with pneumonia. Her doctor decided to do nothing for her. The doctor said:

"she's not going to get better"

The doctor pressured the niece to have her Aunt sedated and dehydrated to death. 

Her niece demanded another doctor and insisted on treatment. Her Aunt is now clear from the pneumonia.

Her Aunt is recovering but the hospital continues to pressure her  niece to have her Aunt sedated and dehydrated to death. The only reason her niece could think of why they are doing this is that her Aunt is 89. Her niece said:

"she doesn't have cancer, she doesn't have any life-threatening condition."

I urged the niece to keep defending her Aunt's right to receive treatment and care.

I consider this to be elder abuse and discrimination. What makes it worse is that the abuse and discrimination seems to be institutionalized.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney to protect you.

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney states your wishes and enables your power of attorney to make medical decisions on your behalf. It protects you from euthanasia and assisted suicide and it defines the treatment/care decisions that you want in the event that you are unable to make medical decisions yourself.

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney gives you the piece of mind that EPC will help you if your expressed wishes are ignored or if a hospital or doctor pressures or attempts to impose medical treatment or care decisions upon you.

Purchase the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link) by contacting EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

If you have concerns contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or Compassionate Community Care at: 1-855-675-8749.

Medicating people without consent or against their expressed wish is illegal.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition regularly receives stories from family members or friends concerning medical decisions.

Yesterday I was sent a story from a grieving son whose mother died a few days after she was given medication that she had specifically refused. 

The issue of consent can be difficult. A person, while competent, will usually be respected when they refuse medication or treatments, but when a person becomes incompetent, their previous expressed wishes are sometimes ignored.This is not the first story I have been sent from a family member or friend concerning medical treatment or medication administered against a persons known wishes.

There were two questions from the caring son.

1. Did the drugs, that she clearly did not want, cause her death?
2. Was giving his mother these drugs illegal?

The first question is hard to answer. It is hard to know whether or not the medications led to his mother's death.

Do not use my comments as legal advice, but to answer the second question - in general it is illegal to administer drugs against someone's consent and if there is clear knowledge of a person refusing certain medications or treatments, while competent, then when incompetent that persons wishes should be respected by medical care-givers, institutions and persons who have the legal right to make medical decisions for that person.

In emergency situations medications will often be administered without consent, if consent is not possible. Another problem occurs when someone is incompetent, and the person they have appointed to make medical decisions has consented to the treatment.

It is very important to have a document, such as the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link to order) that can be purchased from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and to appoint a medical decision maker who understands your wishes and shares your values.

The Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care will Protect you from euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Recently, while speaking, someone asked me:

"Will a Power of Attorney for Personal Care document protect me from euthanasia when I can't speak for myself?"

I stated that EPC updated the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care after euthanasia and assisted suicide was legalized in Canada and it will protect your life.

I stated $10 is a cheap investment to protect your life.

EPC sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 + taxes.

Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney (Information Link) at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care ensures that your power of attorney will have the ability to uphold your values, it clearly protects you from euthanasia and assisted suicide and it defines the treatment decisions that you would want, in the event that you are unable to make decisions for yourself.

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney also gives you the piece of mind that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will help you if your expressed wishes are ignored or if a hospital or doctor pressures to impose decisions upon you.

EPC also works with Compassionate Community Care (CCC) to offer practical advice and support when you or a loved one is faced with difficult medical care decisions, or if you are concerned that a friend or a loved one is being denied basic care or has died by euthanasia.

CCC is a Registered Canadian Charity. Donations to CCC are tax deductible. 

Contact CCC at: 1-855-675-8749. 

Canadian Report suggests that more research is needed on euthanasia for incompetent people who made an advanced request

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The long-awaited reports from the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) concerning the possible extension of euthanasia to children (mature minors), to incompetent people who made an "advanced request," and to people for psychological conditions alone was released on December 12.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia but for the purpose of this article we will only comment on the issue within the report.

Canada legalized euthanasia in June 2016 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision in February 2015 that struck down Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are now referred to as Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) in Canada.

• Link to the CCA summary of the three reports.
• Link to the report: Advanced requests for Medical Assistance in Dying.

The CCA report offered "positive" and negative outcomes to extending euthanasia to incompetent people who made an "advanced request" for euthanasia but they concluded that more research is needed. They stated:

Allowing ARs for MAID could provide comfort and relieve anxiety and distress at end of life for people who want to receive MAID, but are concerned about losing decision-making capacity prior to the procedure. However, removing a requirement for express consent immediately prior to the MAID procedure raises the possibility that a person might receive MAID against their wishes.

The report recognized that the "advanced request" would only be implemented when the person becomes incompetent, meaning that a "Third-Party" would be required to make the decision for death. This becomes complicated with euthanasia decisions because the laws state that the person must be experiencing "intolerable suffering" which is determined by the person requesting euthanasia. The report then states:

However, the person must rely on others to recognize when the conditions described as intolerable suffering in their AR for MAID have been met. An AR for MAID would have to specify what criteria the person considers intolerable (e.g., being bedridden, not recognizing family members, difficulty breathing, or experiencing pain), but these are circumstances of anticipated suffering that may not reflect the lived experience of the person when they reach those circumstances. Uncertainty about how to approach an AR for MAID increases if the person who has lost capacity appears indifferent to receiving MAID, expresses a desire to continue living, or physically or verbally resists the MAID procedure.

The report also recognizes the difficulty with legislating advanced consent for euthanasia considering the fact that every province has its own advanced directive legislation.

Consider the recent case in the Netherlands concerning a woman (74) with dementia who made an advanced request for euthanasia. 

When the doctor came to do the euthanasia the woman resisted and said NO. The doctor, without telling her, put a sedative in her coffee, but the woman still resisted. The doctor then had her family hold her down while the doctor did the euthanasia injection.

In this case, the woman was incompetent and the doctor did not consider that she may have changed her mind. This case outlines how a supposed "advanced request" for euthanasia can result in a euthanasia death without consent.

Once again, the report leans toward the position that euthanasia is a medical act and it makes close comparisons between end-of-life treatment decisions and euthanasia. These comparisons are contentious considering that parliament legalized euthanasia (MAiD) by creating an exception in the criminal code and not by defining it as a medical act.

The report does not recommend extending euthanasia to incompetent people who have made an advanced request but rather it recommends that more research is required.

Canada’s euthanasia lobby is pushing hard to extend euthanasia based on advanced requests. The Audrey Parker campaign was designed to pressure the government to approve advanced request.

You Don’t Want to be a Burden, Do You?

This article was written and published by Nancy Valko on April 26, 2018.

Nancy Valko

By Nancy Valko

An April 13, 2018 USA Today op-ed titled “Make an End-of-life plan or Lose your Money and Choices in your Dying Days” by Hattie Bryant begins with the statement “End-of-life care can bankrupt your family and rob you of choices. End the denial about dying. Make a plan in case you end up seriously ill and frail.” (Emphasis added)

Ms. Bryant is very upfront about using the economic argument about aging and the enormous toll it can take financially and personally on the family as well as medical costs. She states that “in 2011, Medicare spent $554 billion and 28%, or about $170 billion, on patients’ last six months of life. After $170 billion is spent, those patients are still dead.”

Her solution is a new kind of economic advance directive she developed (and is selling as a book titled “I’ll Have It My Way: Taking Control of End-of-Life Decisions“ ) “that deals with how you want your funds spent when you are seriously ill or frail.” (All emphasis added)

Should We Have A “Duty To Die”?

Back in 1984, Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado found himself in the middle of a firestorm of outrage when, as the New York Times reported, “Governor Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have a ‘Duty to Die”.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ''duty to die and get out of the way'' instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday.

People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ''leaves falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow up,'' the Governor told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph's Hospital.

''You've got a duty to die and get out of the way,'' said the 48-year-old Governor. ''Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.''

This philosophy was echoed in 2014 by one of the architects of Obamacare, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, when he wrote “Why I Hope to Die at 75-An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly” for The Atlantic Magazine.

At age 57 at the time, Dr. Emanuel states that while death is a loss, there “is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss” that “renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.” (Emphasis added)

He states that he will stop trying to prolong his own life by age 75.

Conclusion

Helping to care for many terminally ill or seriously disabled relatives, friends and patients of all ages for many decades both professionally and personally, I have a different perspective.

We are all born dependent on others for care and many of us need at least some help from others at the end of our lives. This can be hard at times-as even parents of newborns will attest-but the rewards are great both for the helper and the person being helped.

I remember when my mother with Alzheimer’s and terminal thyroid cancer was dying in 1988. It wasn’t the most convenient time for us, to say the least. I was a suddenly single parent with three young children and financially struggling. My mother no longer recognized me but, as I told a friend, the most important issue was that I recognized her. As a family, we did what was medically reasonable for my mother to help her without either prolonging or hastening her dying.

Taking care of my mother was a wonderful, if occasionally difficult, experience and I am grateful that we were able to keep her at home almost to the very end.

The final result was that my mother was kept safe, comfortable and loved. Her funeral was truly a celebration of her life and my children learned an important lesson about the circle of life and taking care of each other. We still talk fondly about their time helping with grandma, even after 30 years.

When I made out my own advance directive, I made sure that it was as protective as possible against a hastened death. I don’t fear death. I do fear the bio-ethicists and others who use economics and fear to push especially older people into prematurely signing away their rights to even basic care and what this does to our society.

Lethbridge woman in the middle of a medical treatment dispute.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Miranda Holowka

Family members face difficult decisions when a sibling or a parent is facing life-threatening medical conditions. These situations sometimes result in division and legal battles over questions related to medical treatment decisions.

Darlene Crayne (71) has been in a medically induced coma since she had a heart attack on August 26. The Chinook Regional Hospital and Alberta Health Services says that Darlene has minimal brain activity and are moving to withdraw life-support.

Miranda Holowka, Darlene's daughter, is convinced that her mother is getting better and have filmed her mother moving. Miranda said to CTV news:

“We’re not asking for forever, we’re just asking for some time.”

Link to the CTV news story which includes video.

The sad reality is that the family is divided with one of Miranda's sisters agreeing with the hospital. 

Issues related to life-limiting health conditions are often mixed with difficult personal reactions. 

These difficult situations require you to legally assign someone to be your medical decision maker, before the health crisis occurs and while you are competent.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care to protect you when you are unable to make decisions for yourself.

Now the Holowka family, who only want more time for their mother to recover have had to hire a lawyer to attempt to gain more time for their mothers hoped for recovery.

Link to the Darlene Crayne - Go Fund Me legal costs campaign.

Medical error or intentional death in Quebec?

This article was published by First Things on August 22, 2017.

George Weigel

By George Weigel

Those who persist in denying that the Church is engaged in a culture war, the combatants in which are aptly called the “culture of life” and the “culture of death,” might ponder this June blog post by my summer pastor in rural Québec, Father Tim Moyle:

Tonight I am preparing to celebrate a funeral for someone (let’s call him “H” to protect his privacy) who, while suffering from cancer, was admitted to hospital with an unrelated problem, a bladder infection. H’s family had him admitted to the hospital earlier in the week under the assumption that the doctors there would treat the infection and then he would be able to return home. To their shock and horror, they discovered that the attending physician had indeed made the decision NOT to treat the infection. When they demanded that he change his course of (in)action, he refused, stating that it would be better if H died of this infection now rather than let cancer take its course and kill him later. Despite their demands and pleadings, the doctor would not budge from his decision. In fact he deliberately hastened H’s end by ordering large amounts of morphine “to control pain” which resulted in his losing consciousness as his lungs filled up with fluid. In less than 24 hours, H was dead. 

Let me tell you a bit about H. He was 63 years old. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters who are both currently working in universities toward their undergraduate degrees. We are not talking here about someone who was advanced in years and rapidly failing due to the exigencies of old age. We are talking about a man who was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We are talking about a man who still held onto hope that perhaps he might defy the odds long enough to see his daughters graduate. Evidently and tragically, in the eyes of the physician tasked with providing the care needed to beat back the infection, that hope was not worth pursuing. 

Again, let me make this point abundantly clear: It was the express desire of both the patient and his spouse that the doctor treat the infection. This wish was ignored.

Canada’s vulnerability to the culture of death is exacerbated by Canada’s single-payer, i.e. state-funded and state-run, health care system. And the brutal fact is that it's more “cost-effective” to euthanize patients than to treat secondary conditions that could turn lethal (like H’s infection) or to provide palliative end-of-life care. Last year, when I asked a leading Canadian Catholic opponent of euthanasia why a rich country like the “True North strong and free” couldn’t provide palliative end-of-life care for all those with terminal illnesses, relieving the fear of agonized and protracted dying that’s one incentive for euthanasia, he told me that only 30 percent of Canadians had access to such care. When I asked why the heck that was the case, he replied that, despite assurances from governments both conservative and liberal that they’d address this shameful situation, the financial calculus had always won out—from a utilitarian point of view, euthanizing H and others like him was the sounder public policy.

But in Canada, a mature democracy, that utilitarian calculus among government bean-counters wouldn’t survive for long if a similar, cold calculus were not at work in the souls of too many citizens. And that is one reason why the Church must engage the culture war, not only in Canada but in the United States and throughout the West: to warm chilled souls and rebuild a civil society committed to human dignity.

Then there is the civic reason. To reduce a human being to an object whose value is measured by “utility” is to destroy one of the building blocks of the democratic order—the moral truth that the American Declaration of Independence calls the “inalienable” right to “life.” That right is “inalienable”—which means built-in, which means not a gift of the state—because it reflects something even more fundamental: the dignity of the human person.

When we lose sight of that, we are lost as a human community, and democracy is lost. So the culture war must be fought. And a Church that takes social justice seriously must fight it.

Oregon Senate Bill 494 will starve and dehydrate incompetent people to death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In Oregon, the Senate is debating a deceptive bill (SB 494) that appears to simply replace the current advanced directives legislation, but in fact it promotes the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration (food and water) from people who are incompetent and not dying.

In 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference. One of the topics discussed at the conference was death by voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED). I remember the leader of the Dying in Dignity group (UK) stating that they do not promote VSED because, in their experience, it can be a terrible way to die.

Even though Oregon legalized assisted suicide 20 years ago, euthanasia is a prohibited. Euthanasia is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally causes the death of another person, whereas assisted suicide is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally assists another person in causing their own death. SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon.

• Oregon 2015 assisted suicide report. Another 26% increase in assisted deaths.

SB 494 is deceptive and dangerous piece legislation because it is sold as a bill to update current legislation but in fact it changes current legislation to ensure that incompetent people, who may or may not be otherwise dying, can be intentionally killed by dehydration.

Advanced directives are only relevant when a person is incompetent to make decision for themselves. Therefore SB 494, by definition, does not ensure that competent people can die by dehydration, but rather that incompetent people can be dehydrated to death.

SB 494 states:

____ I do not want my life to be prolonged by life support. I also do not want tube feeding as life support. I want my health care provider to allow me to die naturally if my health care provider and another knowledgeable health care provider confirm that I am in any of the medical conditions listed below.

So what are the conditions that are listed below?

a. Close to Death.   

b. Permanently Unconscious. 

c. Advanced Progressive Illness.

d. Extraordinary Suffering.

If a person is nearing death, based on the actual condition of the person, withholding or withdrawing fluids may be appropriate. But this decision should be based on a factual assessment that providing food and water has ceased to benefit and may be harming the person. We do not oppose withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, when providing it has become useless, burdensome or without benefit.

If a person is incompetent then the person cannot consent to death by dehydration. To withhold fluids, even if the person while competent expressed this desire, is in fact dehumanizing the person by denying that person the basic necessaries of life. Withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, who is not otherwise dying, will cause the person to die by dehydration. This is often a terrible death, even when the symptoms are masked by morphine and other analgesics. It is also a form of abandonment to deny a person the basic necessaries of life.

• The Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care will protect your life.

SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon because death by lethal injection is more compassionate than dehydrating a person to death.

It is simply not necessary to change the current Oregon Advanced Directives legislation in order to specifically promote death by dehydration. SB 494 must be defeated.

Elder Abuse, Power of Attorney/Substitute Decision making.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

After speaking this morning to a caring daughter I felt compelled to write about the abuse of power by people who are designated as the power of attorney/substitute decision maker.

We often receive calls or emails from friends or family members of a competent person who is being pressured or controlled by the power of attorney/substitute decision maker.

This morning I spoke to a caring daughter who told me her brother, who is the power of attorney, is preventing her from visiting her mother and refused to release money, from her mother's bank account, to pay for her mother's prescription glasses. The mother is elderly but she remains competent to make decisions for herself.

The daughter said that her mother is afraid of her son. This is a serious problem and a form of elder abuse.

I received a call, a few weeks ago, from a daughter, whose mother was living with ALS. Her mother wanted a life-preserving medical intervention, but the hospital was refusing. The hospital abused her mother's rights by pressuring the "power of attorney" to refuse treatment, even though the mother was competent.

It must be stated that this type of abuse has also been expressed by disability advocates.

Family, friends, medical institutions, nursing homes, etc., should know that it is a form of elder abuse to ignore the rights of people who are elderly or living with a disability.  Just because someone has difficulty communicating doesn't mean that they are incompetent.

Elder and disability abuse is a scourge on the culture. 

Now that euthanasia and assisted suicide have become legal in Canada, the attorney for personal care may assume the "right to decide" if the person lives or dies. 

Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 by contacting the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

What do you need to know:

• The person who you designate as your power of attorney or substitute decision maker only has the right to make decisions,  on your behalf, when you are deemed incompetent.
• When you are competent, you can sign a new representation agreement (power of attorney) at any time, so long you sign it and have it witnessed by unrelated persons.
• You are considered competent until you have been declared incompetent.
• The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition distributes the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10. This legal document will protect you.

Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 by contacting the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

Malta rejects euthanasia and proposes living wills.

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week, a Maltese political party rejected euthanasia and decided instead to codify "living wills." 

The Malta Independent news published a statement from government Chairperson, Professor Arnold Cassola.

"A 'biological will' would allow a person, when still in full possession of one's intellectual faculties, to declare what kind of treatment to accept and whether to prolong or not in an artificial way - through the use of machines or other artificial systems - a life that would otherwise have naturally come to an end. The standards of palliative care should also be looked into to guarantee dignified end-of-life care for everyone." 

“Whilst AD does not agree with the termination of life through euthanasia, it is in favour of the drawing up of 'living wills' or 'biological wills.’”

It is good that the Maltese political parties are debating the issue of euthanasia and recognizing that euthanasia constitutes the termination of a human life.

Do Not Kill Me: I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC offers three ways to protect you from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

1. EPC works with Compassionate Community Care (CCC), a service that offers practical advice and information for people when they or a loved one is: 

• Being denied medical treatment or basic personal care, such as food and water; 
• Has questions related to life-support measures; or 
• Concerned that a loved one is being euthanized.

CCC has developed a community based model of support for people who are lonely and isolated. Contact CCC at: 1-855-675-8749. 

2. The Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care will protect you when you cannot make medical or personal care decisions for yourself.

This legal document enables you to appoint someone you trust to be your Power of Attorney for Personal Care. This document makes clear statements concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide and medical treatment options that you need when you are unable to make decisions for yourself such as receiving food and water unless you are actually nearing death.

EPC distributes the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for $10. Contact EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

3. The Do Not Kill Me wallet card is available from EPC upon request or by donating to EPC. Sign the back of the card. 

EPC will send the Do Not Kill Me wallet card when you call: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca.

4 Membership in the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is $25 for an individual or $50 for a group. Pay for your membership online, or by credit card by calling EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.