Manitoba: MAID euthanasia deaths are increasing quickly.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week I reported that there were approximately 5000 assisted deaths in Canada in 2019 and 13,000 since legalization.

On January 20th I reported that, in Ontario there were 1789 reported assisted deaths in 2019, 1499 in 2018, 841 in 2017 representing an almost 20% increase in 2019.

The increase in the second half of 2019 is striking. In Ontario there were 1015 assisted deaths in the second half of 2019 up from 774 in the first six months of 2019. Ontario will likely have more than 2000 assisted deaths in 2020.

On January 14th I reported that the Alberta data indicates that there were 377 reported assisted deaths in 2019 up from 307 in 2018, and 206 in 2017. The data indicates a 23% increase in Alberta assisted deaths in 2019.

A report by Marney Blunt for Global News states that the number of assisted deaths is increasing quickly in Manitoba. Blunt reported that the number of Manitobans dying by euthanasia skyrocketed in the past few years. The report stated:

When medically-assisted death first became legal in 2016, 42 people requested the service and 24 received it. That number rose in 2017, when 142 people requested MAiD and 63 people received it.

Those numbers almost doubled in 2018, when 239 requested and 138 received. Last year, 313 people asked for a medically-assisted death, and 177 people received it.

The data indicates a 28% increase in Manitoba reported assisted deaths in 2019.

Sadly, I expect a further increase in assisted deaths now that a Quebec court struck down the "terminal illness" requirement in the law. The Quebec court decision was not appealed by the government causing an incremental extension of the law to people who are not terminally ill and may be psychologically suffering.

After the election, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that a first priority for the government is to amend Canada's euthanasia law.

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

Canada's Justice Minister is considering expanding euthanasia to include teenagers and incompetent people.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's Justice Minister, David Lametti was reported in a Radio Canada interview that he is considering extending euthanasia to teenagers and people who are incompetent but made a previous request.

Lametti, who voted against Bill C-14 in 2016 because it didn't go far enough, has been ordered by Prime Minister Trudeau to expand Canada's euthanasia law.

All of this is based on the fact that the Liberal government did not appeal a Québec court decision that struck down the section of Canada's euthanasia law requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable."
 
The Liberal government double speak is particularly concerning. Last Spring the government announced that no changes will be made to the law until after the government completed a five year review, that would begin in June 2020. What is the purpose of a five year review if the government eliminates the restrictions in the law previous to the consultation.

Christian Noël reporting for Radio Canada explains what Lametti said in the interview (google translated):

..the Minister of Justice said he was juggling the idea of ​​allowing people who suffer from a neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson's disease, to seek medical aid in dying early, before being unable to '' express their consent.

The possibility that seriously ill young people between the ages of 14 and 17 may seek medical assistance in dying, with psychological tags in place, is also being considered.

We will have to see if we have a strong consensus. The Canadian and Quebec societies of 2019 are not the same as in 2015. There is an evolution, a greater acceptance of assisted dying in Canada.

Lametti did recognize that he could simply amend the law based on the Quebec court decision. Radio Canada reported:

The other option on the table is to settle the question of reasonably foreseeable death in time for March 11, while keeping an in-depth review of the law for this summer. The government had promised to review the law every five years, a deadline that arrives in June.

The Globe and Mail suggested a more cautious approach in its December 16 editorial. It suggested that legislation require that before MAiD is done that all other options be tried first and that the government assure better services for people with chronic conditions that cause suffering. The Globe and Mail editorial concluded:

But Ottawa should not just throw up its hands and enforce no precautions. That could tilt the balance too far in the other direction. Making access to assisted death too difficult is undesirable, but so is making it too easy.

The federal government announced that there would be a five year review of the euthanasia law beginning in June 2020 and yet it is now considering amending the legislation before the review is done.

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide oversight and control. EPC would like the government to step back and agree to an honest analysis of what is the actual happening with euthanasia in Canada.

Leaders debate: Andrew Scheer is the only leader who questions euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

During the leaders debate, last night, the leaders of Canada's political parties were set-up by a MAiD (euthanasia) question from a woman with multiple sclerosis, who wears adult diapers, has bed sores, and has had rheumatoid arthritis since childhood. The woman asked if they would respect the Québec euthanasia court decision?

Typical of the media to set-up the question to make euthanasia appear "compassionate" and the questioner better off dead than disabled.

The question is based on the September 11 decision by a Québec Superior court to strike down the provision in Canada's euthanasia law requiring that a person be terminally ill to qualify for death by lethal injection.

* Québec court expands euthanasia law by striking down the terminal illness requirement.

Last night, Prime Minister Trudeau re-iterated that he would expand the law within the next six months. Trudeau isn't concerned that his own government established a five-year review to begin in June 2020 that would have enabled Canadians to provide democratic input.

The other leaders, Elizabeth May (Green), Jagmeet Singh (NDP), Yves-Francois Blanchet (Bloc) and Maxime Bernier (PPLC) all supported an expansion of the euthanasia law, except for Andrew Scheer.

Andrew Scheer

Scheer stated that the Conservative party opposed the euthanasia law and he stated that we need to protect vulnerable people.

He added that his party will “always respect” the decisions of the court. “At the same time, we will evaluate the decision.” He said he agreed with Blanchet and that “we need to try to find [a] path forward.”

At the previous french language debate Scheer was the only one to oppose euthanasia. He said "he would appeal the decision and would convene the Parliament to craft a revised MAiD regime."

It appears that Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives are the only major political party who will refuse to expand the euthanasia law.

Where do the Canada's political party leaders stand on MAiD?

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On September 11, a Québec Superior court struck down the provision in Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law requiring that a person be terminally ill to be approved for death by lethal injection. The court decided that requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" was unconstitutional.

During the french language debate on TVA, between political party leaders Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Lib), Andrew Scheer (CPC), Jagmeet Singh (NDP) and Yves-François Blanchet (BQ), Trudeau stated that he would not appeal the Québec Truchon court decision that struck down the "terminal illness" requirement. Trudeau also said that he would craft a more permissive MAiD regime in the 6 months period ordered by the Court.

Other than Andrew Scheer, the other party leaders supported a more permissive euthanasia (MAiD) regime. Scheer said that he would appeal the decision and revise the MAiD regime. 

Maxime Bernier (PPC) and Elizabeth May did not participate in that debate.

Elizabeth May is on record as supporting MAiD while Bernier supports MAiD but he supports requiring a psychological evaluation before approval.

The recent euthanasia death of Alan Nichols, a physically healthy man who was living with chronic depression, has led one family to ask how could their brother have died by euthanasia? Clearly the law is not protecting depressed people with questionable mental competency.

The language of the Quebec court decision expands euthanasia to people with psychiatric issues alone. 

In March I published an article showing that, as of December 31, 2018, there had been 7949 assisted deaths in Canada, since legalization. There were 2704 reported assisted deaths in 2017 and 4235 reported assisted deaths in 2018.

Trudeau promises further expansions of Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On September 11, a Québec court struck down the provision in Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law requiring that a person be terminally ill to qualify for death by lethal injection.

* Québec court expands euthanasia law by striking down the terminal illness requirement.

The court decided that requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" was unconstitutional and they gave the government 30 days to appeal the decision, knowing that Canada was in the middle of a federal election.

I have stated that this court decision may also extend euthanasia to people for psychological reasons alone. Canada's euthanasia law states that a person qualifies for death by lethal drugs if their:

illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Therefore the requirement that the person's "natural death be reasonably foreseeable" limited euthanasia for psychological reasons to terminally ill people. Since the court struck down this poorly worded safeguard, will this expand euthanasia to people with psychological issues alone?

Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, Blanchet.

In a televised debate on French TV network TVA, between political party leaders Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Lib), Andrew Scheer (CPC), Jagmeet Singh (NDP) and Yves-François Blanchet (BQ), Trudeau stated that he would not appeal the Québec court decision that struck down the "terminal illness" requirement and that he would craft a more permissive MAiD regime in the 6 months period ordered by the Court.

Similarly, the other party leaders except Scheer stated they were in favour of a more permissive MAiD regime.

Scheer stated he would appeal the decision and would convene the Parliament to craft a revised MAiD regime.

Althia Roj reporting for the Huffington post, confirms my report and also confirms my belief that the Liberals designed the law for expansion:

The law had been purposefully designed initially as restrictive, he (Trudeau) suggested, as said he expected it would keep expanding as time and norms shifted. “We understand that society evolves.”

The recent euthanasia death of Alan Nichols, a physically healthy man who was living with chronic depression, has led one family to ask how he could have died by euthanasia? As the family seeks to find justice in the death of Alan, will this become the new norm in Canada?

Since the deadline to appeal is during the federal election, only Justice Minister David Lametti (Lib) (who voted against C-14 because it was not permissive enough) can appeal the decision.

By not appealing the Québec court decision they are in fact deciding to expand the scope of Canada's euthanasia law.

The Liberal government goes back on a promise.

The government announced that a five-year review of the euthanasia law will begin in June 2020. Trudeau announced, in the French debate, that he will ignore the input of Canadians and impose a more permissive euthanasia regime, soon after the election. So much for democracy.

In March I published an article explaining that, as of December 31, 2018, there had been 7949 assisted deaths in Canada, since legalization. The number of assisted deaths increased by more than 50% in 2018 from 2704 reported assisted deaths in 2017 to 4235 reported assisted deaths in 2018.

I will not tell you how to vote, but the leaders debate in French established a clear indication for Canadian voters.

Euthanasia: The stakes are insanely high.

By Charles Lewis

Most people reading this article are probably opposed to euthanasia. Your involvement maybe nothing more than talking to friends and neighbours about the dangers of our new world. You may have spoken about euthanasia, signed petitions, sent the letters or supported conscience rights.

Whatever you do helps. But in the not-too-distant future we are all going to have to ramp up. As many of you know Health Canada has struck a committee to add "mature minors" and those with mental illness to the categories of people who can legally be killed by their physicians. They are also considering allowing Canadians to put their death requests in a living will. The committee will report back by December 2018.

I wondered why so long to wait. The only answer I can come up with is that by then more Canadians will have simply become used to living in a death-mad country.

On April 17, a story appeared in the Globe and Mail about a tragic young man who lived with mental illness. He could not access euthanasia so he killed himself by suicide. The point of the story as I can best tell was not his tragedy but more about the need to extend euthanasia to people with mental illness.

I will bet that the recommendations will be accepted and likely by 2019 those categories will be included. Interesting that they are not looking at chronic pain -- something of a hobby of mine. But really they don't have to. Chronic pain can create great emotional stress which can easily turn into depression. But I won't be surprised that after Trudeau and his pro-death friends get teens and mentally ill in they will expand to chronic pain and perhaps even a category of just dying for the hell of it.

This is an awful future to contemplate but believe it or not there maybe a reason for optimism. Maybe, just maybe, this new move might worry many Canadians who have shrugged their shoulders at legalized euthanasia. Maybe when they start to think of their 20-year-old sons or daughters killing themselves because they are depressed about being dumped by a someone they love or failing to get into medical school might start to alarm otherwise passive Canadians. Maybe their son or daughter lives with chronic depression?

We are going to have to increase our efforts and make this spectre known, to prove to others, who do not feel the way we do, that maybe it is time to scream NO.

It will also mean that we are going to have to make sure that religious institutions do not dawdle. Warnings from the pulpit are going to have to come early, not one month before the committee reports.

This maybe our only real chance to stem the tide. We must not blow it. The stakes are insanely high.

Charles Lewis is a former editor with the National Post. He is currently a columnist with the Catholic Register.

Some thoughts on a drive through traffic hell to rail against euthanasia.

By Charles Lewis

Many of you know I have been doing speeches against euthanasia since retiring from the National Post in January 2014. Most also know that I have a very painful spinal issue that limits my activities.

So it was with some trepidation that I agreed, many months ago, to speak at a dinner in Cambridge Ontario. I figured by the time it rolled around I would be feeling much better.

I was so wrong.

But a promise is a promise so on a recent Thursday I headed out to Cambridge west down the dreaded 401. What should have taken 70 minutes with no traffic or two hours with some traffic turned into three hours of misery. Then to add to the fun I got lost. Urbanites like myself do not do well with regional roads.

So at some point, in pain and with a throbbing headache from said pain, I ended up in a nearby city. I don't own a cell phone but I figured I'd be able to use a phone at a gas station or find a pay phone. Guess what? No one likes to let you use his or her phones for fear you'll call your Oma in Berlin or you favourite Aunt in Hong Kong. And, as I discovered, there are no pay phones.

Finally some good soul took pity on me and lent me his cell phone. The connection was so bad that I couldn't hear what was being said so I finally broke down babbling and yelling that I would never make it. It wasn't one of my proudest moments but every once in a while I cut myself a break.

Someone standing by where I was yelling heard me mention the conference centre. He gave me simple directions and miracle of miracle I did find the right Canadian Tire at the bottom of the right hill.

By the time I arrived at the conference centre I was in massive pain and sweating. As I got out of the car, hobbled, I thought that there was no way I can pull this off. Though I did.

I had enough personal fury to carry me through. For as angry as I was for getting lost and being in severe pain it could not match my disgust with what is happening in Parliament and how we are being kicked down the road to perdition.

It didn't help that CBC radio was doing endless stories of what some dim light named "elbowgate" — the ridiculous event in Parliament when our illustrious prime minister ran across the floor and grabbed the Tory Whip (very kinky sounding to an American) and in the process elbowed a NDP MP by accident. I nearly punched the dashboard when I heard that some Tory MP accused Justin Trudeau of molestation. Oy vey!

The CBC report kept replaying the endless "profound" apologies of Trudeau's. Then there were the endless discussions about what his misbehaviour meant for his future and the future of the House of Commons.

I'm not a wise guy but I knew the answer: Nothing.

But barely mentioned on CBC or in the newspapers following the “incident” was what drove Trudeau across the floor. He was attempting to close debate on Bill C14, the euthanasia bill.

Two things here: We know that Trudeau, despite his claims otherwise, is anti-democratic. This was the same man who banned pro-life candidates from the Liberal Party. Then this motion to limit debate also showed a strong authoritarian streak. What is the purpose of Parliament if not to air important issues? Though as many of us who oppose euthanasia know that this is not really an important issue. Just another bill in the business of Parliament.

It's shameful enough that there was no debate during the federal election concerning euthanasia but now it's barely taking place in Parliament. That is what was driving my fury. Shouldn't the media in this country be outraged at that? I understand procedure and the need for it to be followed but walking across the floor of the House is not exactly a nuclear attack or molestation.

I don't remember much about my talk in Cambridge. It seemed to come out of me without barely looking at my notes. I can only say for certain that I was on fire. It was as if something else took over and I gave way to my disgust and anger about what is going on in our country. Clearly the listeners caught my mood given the number of ovations and the questions that followed.

Let me add one more thing. The last question of the night was from a very thoughtful woman who asked the following: 

"Have we as a nation become complacent?"

I was about to answer but stopped myself. Instead I asked the woman a question: 

"Have you become complacent?"

The question stopped her dead.

Dr Brad Burke: Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau

April 4, 2016

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

To the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau,

I am writing to you out of deep concern for the legislation that will soon be drafted regarding physician assisted suicide. I am so concerned, that I produced videos on the websites, DearGodLetter.ca and CherDieuLettre.ca, in the hope that more Canadians would be informed about the potential ramifications of such legislation.

As a medical doctor, there are many arguments I could provide detailing why physician assisted suicide is wrong for Canada. But the one argument that many have overlooked is the very real likelihood that physician assisted suicide in Canada would actually lead to more pain and suffering in Canada—not less.

Let me explain:

As a pain specialist I have evaluated hundreds of car accident victims over the past several years.  Interestingly, the patient suffering chronic pain from injuries sustained in the crash is almost always the victim—rarely the individual(s) responsible for the crash. Many falsely believe these patients are just trying to scam the system. While this might be the case in rare circumstances, almost always these victims have legitimate chronic pain.

Research has demonstrated that when the mind is clouded by negative emotions, such as anger, hate, bitterness, or depression, the body is unable to properly “turn off” pain signals arising from lower in the body. Car accident victims are often angry at the individual(s) who hit them, and frequently develop low mood and/or anxiety. All these negative emotions play a role in the development of chronic pain by way of something pain specialists call, “Central sensitization.” Peripheral sensitization and maladaptive central nervous system (i.e. brain) neuronal plasticity are also factors in the genesis of chronic pain. 

How does this relate to physician assisted suicide? 

If the recommendations provided by the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying become law, there will be many teenagers, parents, and grandparents killed against the will of their family members (especially those suffering from depression). Prime Minister Trudeau, it won’t be long and your children will be teenagers. You wouldn’t want someone to kill your teenagers against your will.  Why then would you want to kill other teenagers against the will of their parents?

A family can eventually learn to forgive a member who rashly commits suicide on their own. However, it will be extremely hard—if not impossible—for Canadian families to forgive the doctors and politicians responsible for their loved one’s death. The same rage that the Goldman’s displayed against O. J. Simpson will be the same anger directed at you and many others by Canadian families. These angry family members will be at significantly greater risk of developing depression and anxiety, with a high likelihood of developing chronic pain from even minor injuries—and sometimes no injury at all. For every one person you kill against the will of the family, you run a very high risk of triggering a lifetime of mental and/or physical illness/pain in at least one family member—and possibly the entire family.

Furthermore, there are over 5,000 physicians across Canada in the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience, committed to protecting conscience rights for health practitioners and facilities. Many will refuse to kill their patients, and refuse to refer patients to be killed. For every doctor’s license you consequently take away, you will erase on average at least 2,000 patient encounters per doctor per year. Then there’s the doctors who will just quietly leave the country, and those who will refuse to move to Canada because of the hostile environment where doctors are forced to work against their consciences. Then add to this the number of healthcare professionals who will drop out of palliative care and Geriatrics for fear of losing their licenses. Do the math and the number of Canadians affected are staggering.

Will all this not result in even more pain and suffering for Canadians in the end?

Yes, there will always be individuals who want to kill themselves at the first diagnosis of a chronic disease. And there will always be arguments saying that not everyone has equal access to quality palliative care across Canada where adequate pain control is very often achieved. But what kind of country would rather kill its citizens than provide the necessary care and compassion they deserve?

Will the Liberal Party be popular with Canadians 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years from now? 

Will the Liberal Party be popular with the Person who created the teenagers, parents, and grandparents that you will kill? 

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

Brad Burke, MD, FRCPC

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Cc The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice

Cc The Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health

Caring Not Killing Postcard Campaign

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) has launched a postcard campaign to Members of Parliament under the theme: I support Caring Not Killing.

The postcard campaign urges members of parliament to reject euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with dementia and minors, people with psychiatric conditions and to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals.

EPC is distributing three different bilingual postcards that you can send to Prime Minister Trudeau, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, Health Minister Jane Philipott, or your Member of Parliament (MP).

Link to the list of members of parliament.

Order the postcards by contacting EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca and tell us how many postcards you want and where we need to send them. EPC is distributing the postcards for free, but we ask you to consider making a donation to the cost of the campaign.

On the one side of the card, write your name, address, Postal Code and Signature. On the other side of the card and write the name of the political leader or your member of parliament.

It is free to mail the postcards to federal politicians.

The three different bilingual messages state:

1. I support Caring Not Killing.
The government must reject the legalization of euthanasia for psychiatric conditions.

J’appuie les bons soins, pas le meurtre.
Le gouvernement doit rejeter la légalisation de l’euthanasie dans les cas de maladie mentale.

2. I support Caring Not Killing.
The government must reject the legalization of euthanasia for people with dementia and minors.

J’appuie les bons soins, pas le meurtre.
Le gouvernement doit rejeter les injections létales pour les personnes démentes et les mineurs.

3. I support Caring Not Killing.
The government must protect conscience rights for medical professionals. My doctor must not be forced to refer for assisted death.

J’appuie les bons soins, pas le meurtre.
Le gouvernement doit protéger la liberté de conscience des professionnels de la santé. Mon médecin ne doit pas être forcé à référer pour une aide médicale à mourir.

It is better to send letters to your member of parliament. The list of members of parliament.

For more information:

• Report recommends euthanasia for: dementia, minors, psychiatric conditions and without effective oversight.
• Hugh Scher: Assisted Dying proposal a dangerous social policy experiment.
• Assisted dying report goes beyond scope, ignores evidence.

Liberal Members of Parliament may be ordered to vote for euthanasia bill.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Liberal Party has ordered Liberal Members of Parliament to support their upcoming euthanasia bill, even though many of them may object to the language of the bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), which was not given the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee, recognizes that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the assisted suicide law, but the design and language of the future law will determine who qualifies for and how likely it is that the law will be misused.

In all jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, the system requires two doctors to  approve the death, and then the doctor who assists the death, must send in a report, after the person has died without before-the-death third-party oversight. An after-the-death reporting system allows doctors to self police and self report leading to misuse of the law, under-reporting, and falsified reports.

One of the issues that is being debated is whether euthanasia should be permitted for psychiatric reasons. Canada's euthanasia lobby is pushing for euthanasia for people who cannot consent. Ambiguous definitions could enable a person who requires treatment for depression to die an assisted death.

Last week the Globe and Mail reported that Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc confirmed that the Liberal vote will be whipped to support the euthanasia bill. The Liberals have a majority government in the House of Commons. LeBlanc justified this decision by defining assisted dying as a "Charter of Rights" issue.

As much as LeBlanc, and the Liberal leadership have defined euthanasia as a Charter issue, it simply is not. The Supreme Court struck down Canada's assisted suicide act, but it did not declare that there is a "right to die."

Hon John McKay

Long term Liberal MP John McKay told the Globe and Mail:

“It’s not core to the government’s mandate; it’s a response to the Supreme Court,” he said. “I don’t see this as a Charter issue.”

Robyn Urback, from the National Post challenged the Liberals to be honest with why they are whipping the vote. Urback wrote:

"In claiming the issue is about the charter, rather than how the government meets the requirements of the court, LeBlanc is being both misleading and dishonest... In using the charter as a cape to deflect queries and justify dictating the vote to parliamentarians, no matter what their consciences may tell them, Trudeau is treating Parliament as a rubber stamp for the leadership."

After publishing this article, the Globe and Mail published a new article stating that the Liberals may not order Liberal MP's to support the euthanasia bill. The new article quoted Liberal House leader, Dominic LeBlanc, as stating:

“We decided to delay the decision about whether or not it’s a whipped vote. It’s premature to come to a final conclusion like that,” 

“We’re going to discuss the bill and the committee report in our caucus, and we will make the decision as to how the bill will be handled once the bill is introduced in the House.”

EPC recognizes that by whipping the vote, the Liberals will also control the consideration of amendments to the bill. The Liberal decision to snub democracy will likely impose on Canada an irresponsible and dangerous euthanasia law.

The Conservative and NDP Members of Parliament have been given a free-vote in parliament.

Provincial-Territorial Group seeks death on demand for all (even for children)

This article was published by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia on December 16, 2015

We read with dismay the final report of the Provincial-Territorial Advisory Group that was published on November 30. The 43 recommendations in the report clearly have no other goal than the unfettered promotion of euthanasia and assisted suicide throughout Canada. The report’s authors abandon all caution, make no attempt to prevent harm, and demolish all the safeguards, however minimal, that the Supreme Court of Canada included in the Carter decision, interpreting them all with the undisguised intention of mandating death on demand for everyone.

First, the report errs in its interpretation of the Carter decision by arguing that the definition of "adult" should include children because it “relates to a patient’s ability to give consent rather than a particular age cut-off [to] allow access to patients who are competent, regardless of age.”

Next, it recommends extending to nurses and physician assistants the power to cause death, and recommends obliging persons and institutions who refuse to participate to find someone willing to carry out the act in their place. According to the authors, the State should even finance all procedures for euthanasia and assisted suicide, and life insurance payments should be guaranteed for the relatives of the deceased, opening the doors wide to financial abuse and to pressure on those who are sick or elderly, and afraid of becoming a burden on those around them.

Among the long list of measures proposed to facilitate the path toward suicide or euthanasia for some, and forced compliance for others, we find one that is sufficient to remove any credibility that might remain. In their passion to expand the reach of the law, the authors propose that “Where there is limited physician supply, provinces and territories should enable virtual physician assessments and visits using telemedicine services (or other video-based consultations).” Such a recommendation shows contempt for both the crucial importance of human relations in medicine and the value of people who are living through vulnerable moments, in addition to threatening the lives of those whose symptoms are not well controlled for lack of access to medical treatment.

Finally, while the Belgians express their concern about the havoc caused by their law, the authors of the report seek to open the floodgates beyond anything that occurs elsewhere, even in the most permissive jurisdictions. All the recommendations in this report are open to the most subjective and potentially irrational interpretation, throwing medical expertise into the bottom of a trash can filled with legal vacuum.

In conclusion, this unconditionally pro-euthanasia and pro-assisted suicide report contains such outrageous proposals that Canada would lose all credibility on the international stage if it were to serve as the basis for any federal, provincial or territorial legislation. Its approach, campaigning for universal access to death on demand instead of for high quality health care, relegates the care and safety of sick Canadians to the bottom of the priority list.

In addition to its endorsement of death on demand for all, the report also recommends establishing a national program to actively promote it, so as to sustain the myth of death as a public benefit. Such a policy of death on demand is completely opposed to the political and social optimism announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his promise of "sunny ways" for Canada.

A five-year-old girl and family plead with the Prime Minister of Canada: say 'no' to euthanasia.

A five-year-old Canadian girl and family pleads with the Prime Minister of Canada: For the sake of our families say 'no' to euthanasia

Media Release - Montreal - December 16, 2015. (Link to the Canada News wire release)

Link to the Youtube video.

As Canada moves in the direction of legalizing euthanasia, and some provinces are discussing extending euthanasia to children, Sylvain, Sherley and five-year-old Jolyanne's message to the Prime Minister of Canada is simple. For the sake of families, please do not support euthanasia. Sylvain and Sherley believe euthanasia is dangerous. They are convinced that those who cannot fight will be persuaded to give up too quickly and, in some cases, euthanize their loved ones. As Sylvain says in this heart-touching video, if he had listened to the doctors' advice when everything looked so grim, he would now be alone without the two women he loves most in his life—his wife Sherley and his precious daughter Jolyanne. 

Sylvain and Sherley are a Canadian couple living near Montreal who were faced with many of these pressures. They were discouraged from continuing the pregnancy of their future daughter, Jolyanne, at 27 weeks of pregnancy because they were told she would be a Down's baby (erroneous diagnosis) with a malformed esophagus (esophageal atresia). Despite the many medical challenges, Jolyanne thrives today and is the joy of Sylvain's and Sherley's life.

Only two years after Jolyanne was born, Sherley was in a coma and on life support because of pneumonia. Sylvain was told his wife's chances of survival were extremely poor. He was also told that if Sherley survived, she would have no quality of life. The doctors pressured him to disconnect his wife from life support. Despite the pressures, he fought back to save his wife's life.

Quebec passed a law on June 5, 2014 to permit euthanasia. In 2013, prior to the law being passed, the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Commission recommended extending euthanasia to children. A recently released report from an Ontario advisory group is also recommending children be free to "choose" euthanasia.

In this controversy, physicians and patients have been speaking out against euthanasia for many reasons: 

• Euthanasia is not medical care,
• Euthanasia contradicts a physician's code of conduct, which does not permit a doctor to intentionally end a person's life even if that person requests it,
• A person with a serious medical condition is often depressed and has clouded judgment,
• There are financial and social pressures,
• There are diagnostic errors,
• There are errors in predicting outcomes of a medical condition,
• Euthanasia criteria always expands. It begins with adults, then extends to children. At first only terminal illnesses are allowed, but later chronic ailments are accepted. Initially those suffering physically are selected, but the door opens wide to include the depressed.
• Palliative care relieves pain and suffering without prematurely ending a person's life but is, unfortunately, not available to the majority of Canadians. Thus, there is no free choice.

Dr Paul Saba

Prime Minister Trudeau, you do have a choice. Euthanasia is currently being challenged in the courts of Quebec. It is still illegal in Canada. On behalf of five-year-old Jolyanne and her family and many others, please save Canadian lives by saying 'no' to euthanasia.

Source Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice.

For further information:
Dr Paul Saba, (514) 886-3447, pauljsaba@gmail.com