Euthanasia activist outlines expansion of euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Yesterday I wrote about Canada's euthanasia statistics indicating that assisted deaths increased by more than 50% in 2018 representing approximately 1.5% of all deaths. 
 
The data was gleaned from a presentation by Canada's leading "academic" euthanasia activist, Jocelyn Downie, who was speaking at a Royal Society of Canada lunch lecture in Ottawa. 

In her presentation Downie stated that 7949 people reportedly died by MAiD in Canada as of December 31, 2018, meaning that there were reportedly 4235 assisted deaths in 2018, up from 2704 assisted deaths in 2017 and 1010 assisted deaths in 2016 (plus December 2015).
 

During her presentation, Downie, who was a Special Advisor to the Canadian Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide; author of the book Dying Justice: A Case for the Decriminalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, a member of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), a member of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, and a member of the Canadian Council of Academies Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying, outlined her goals for expanding euthanasia in Canada.

Downie focused on the section of the law that limits euthanasia to people whose "natural death is reasonably forseeable." Downie admits that reasonably forseeable is undefined, but she also recognizes that this section of the law restricts people who are not terminally ill from accessing euthanasia. She stated that this section of the law is unconstitutional.

Downie then stated that it was unconstitutional to limit euthanasia to people 18 years and older. She advocated for the expansion of euthanasia to include children.

Downie spoke about the fact that the law does not prevent people with mental or psychiatric issues from dying by euthanasia, but the "natural death is reasonably forseeable" provision excludes people with psychiatric issues alone. Downie stated that restricting euthanasia to people whereby "natural death is reasonably forseeable" is unconstitutional therefore, when that is struck down, people with psychiatric issues alone will become eligible for euthanasia.
 
Downie commented on extending euthanasia to incompetent people who made an advanced request. Downie told the Audrey Parker story and claimed that denying euthanasia to incompetent people who made an advanced request forces people to die earlier and is therefore unconstitutional.
 
In the Q&A session Downie was asked about transferring patients from religiously affiliated hospitals for MAiD. Downie suggested that each hospital could have a room that is declared "extraterritorial" to enable MAiD to be done in Catholic hospitals.
 
The media, and groups like the Royal Society of Canada, continue to consider Downie as a neutral academic. Just to make things worse, in 2015 Downie was awarded a $225,000 research grant by the Trudeau Foundation to research Medical Assistance in Dying.
 
I find supposed academics dis-ingenuous that they insist on promoting "quasi-academic" research for the purpose of building a body of false precedents and accepted practises. Yes, I am referring to Jocelyn Downie.

When will the world stop hiring the fox to watch the hen-house?

Links to more articles concerning Jocelyn Downie.

Canada’s euthanasia Leviathan

This article was published by Careful a Mercatornet blog on April 26, 2016.

Supporters invoke Thomas Hobbes in a proposal to crush conscientious objection to euthanasia. 

Michael Cook

By Michael Cook

Canada is soon to have legislation permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, as decreed by its Supreme Court last year. One question, however, over which some uncertainty hovers is how much wriggle room should be left for doctors who have ethical objections to the new regime.

For one of the country’s most influential bioethicists, Udo Schuklenk, the answer is straightforward: none.

In an article published last weekend, he wrote that “conscientious objection has no place in the practice of medicine”. If doctors feel that they cannot practice euthanasia or refer patients to another doctor for euthanasia, they should find another job.

Dr Schuklenk is worth listening to. He is the co-editor of Bioethics, one of the world’s leading journals in the field, and a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University, in Ontario, Canada. He was one of the authors of an influential white paper commissioned by the Royal Society of Canada for the debate which eventually led to legalisation.

His stand on conscientious objection is not new, but the timing is significant. Bill C-14 was introduced into the Canadian parliament last week implementing the Supreme Court ruling.

Only doctors will be allowed to perform euthanasia, but it is still not clear whether they will have the option of conscientious objection. Dr Schuklenk’s essay in the Journal of Medical Ethics (written with a colleague, Ricardo Smalling, also from Queen’s University), is sure to influence the debate in the weeks before the Supreme Court’s June 6 deadline for passing legislation.

Some Canadian doctors already fear that they will be forced to perform the procedures or refer patients to more compliant doctors. Writing in the Canadian Family Physician, one general practitioner, Dr Nancy Naylor, declared that she was throwing in the towel:

"I refuse to let anyone or any organization dictate my moral code. For this reason I am not renewing my licence to practice medicine. I have practiced full scope family medicine, including palliative care for the past 37 years and solely palliative care for the past 3 years. I have no wish to stop. But I will not be told that I must go against my moral conscience to provide standard of care."

Such words will not move Schuklenk and Smalling. In a nutshell, they contend that medical professionals have made a contract with society. In return for a lucrative monopoly on the provision of an essential service, patients have a right to demand that they provide them with legal and socially acceptable services. “Forcing patients to live by the conscientious objectors' values constitutes an unacceptable infringement on the rights of patients.”

By withholding their services, doctors are also are exploiting the power differential between them and patients. They cite approvingly American bioethicist R. Alta Charo, who has said:

“claiming an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good constitutes an abuse of the public trust—all the worse if it is not in fact a personal act of conscience but, rather, an attempt at cultural conquest”.

And finally, they believe that conscientious objection, based as it is on indemonstrable premises, is arbitrary and fickle. “Today it might be abortion and assisted dying, tomorrow it might be the use of the tools of personalised medicine or something else altogether.”

The original edition of Leviathon by Thomas Hobbes

Now here’s the interesting part: the writers cite Leviathan, a pioneering political tract by the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in support of their attack on the rights of conscience. It’s a tell-tale reference, for Hobbes is generally regarded as intellectual patron of the modern totalitarian state.

Hobbes was writing in a time of bitter religious conflict. A civil war in the middle of the 17th century divided England between royalist Cavaliers, mostly Anglican, and parliamentarian Roundheads, mostly Puritans and Presbyterians. For a decade armies crisscrossed Britain and Ireland. A hundred thousand people or more died in England; in Ireland, 40 percent of the population may have perished.

Hobbes had a gutful of pointless disputes by the king’s subjects over religion. Disagreement led to slaughter and anarchy; peace depended on obedience to the sovereign, or the government, which was, in his words, “that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence”. Unanimity is the hallmark of Hobbes’s state: “seeing a Commonwealth is but one person, it ought also to exhibit to God but one worship”. In these words are the seeds of both the Nazi Leviathan and the Communist Leviathan.

With this in mind, it is astonishing that Schuklenk and Smalling open their argument by citing Hobbes on the question of freedom of conscience. They point out that the subject of Hobbes’s sovereign has no need of an individual conscience, for “the law is the public conscience by which he hath already undertaken to be guided”. Doctors and other healthcare workers in Canada ought to heed this ominous allusion. The euthanasia Leviathan will brook no opposition. And they admit quite candidly their admiration for Hobbes:

"Of course, Hobbes is not quite our archetypical defender of liberal democracies, but the point he is making here is valid, it applies to the case of conscientious objectors in liberal democracies, too."

Yes, there will be problems in trying to accommodate conscientious objectors to euthanasia, but the answer is not a new totalitarianism.

The problem with an ethical framework in which conscience has no rights is that it works too well – not just in Canada, but in, say, Saudi Arabia. If a doctor there refused to amputate the hand of a thief, would Professor Schuklenk argue that he should to get another job? If he shrank from female genital mutilation, would Professor Schuklenk write a white paper suggesting that refusniks be fired?

When William and Mary came to the throne in 1688, England faced much the same problem as Canada does today. Britain was a patchwork of antipathetic religions: Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Puritans, and a bewildering variety of non-conformists such as Quakers, Baptists, Socinians, Muggletonians, Ranters, Philadelphians, Levellers and Diggers. England’s great achievement was to repudiate the idea of the all-powerful sovereign and accommodate these opposing beliefs without too much friction.

In their call for the abolition of conscientious objection Schuklenk and Smalling are effectively turning the clock back to 1651, the year Hobbes published Leviathan. If Canadian MPs listen to them, 300 years of liberal democracy are at risk.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Ian Dowbiggin: A scandal in the euthanasia archives

The Prince Arthur Herald published this article on November 30, 2015. Ian Dowbiggin is the author of the book: A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. 

Why has the euthanasia movement hidden or destroyed its history?

By Ian Dowbiggin 

Imagine for a moment that reporters broke the news that the Vatican had destroyed the bulk of its archival records. Researchers around the world justifiably might accuse the Roman Catholic Church of a deliberate cover-up. 

Well, the Vatican has done no such thing. But it appears as if the right-to-die movement has. If so, one might well ask; why did people in the movement do it? Are they trying to hide something about their past? 

One thing is clear: if the euthanasia movement’s records have indeed been destroyed, a lot of history has vanished, Orwell-like, down a cavernous memory hole. And with it, information the right-to-die movement doesn’t want you to know. 

I should know, because I saw these records and I know what was in them. I wrote up my findings in my 2003 book on the history of the movement, published by Oxford University Press. 

The story of my involvement in these valuable records begins about fifteen years ago when I was given permission to explore the archives of what used to be called Partnerships for Caring, Inc. PFC was a successor organization to the defunct Euthanasia Society of America (ESA). The ESA records, housed in a law firm in Baltimore, consisted of 15 large cardboard boxes holding correspondence, financial records, press releases, published materials and minutes of meetings, much of it uncatalogued. 

There were literally thousands of items in these boxes documenting the entire 20th c. history of the U.S. and non-American activists who advocated the legalization of various forms of euthanasia. The ESA archive contained materials relating to the careers of noteworthy social activists such as Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (now called Compassion and Choices), Joseph Fletcher, the founder of “situation ethics,” Alan Guttmacher (after whom the population-control Guttmacher Institute in New York City is named), and the birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger who, unbeknownst to all her biographers, was also a vocal proponent of legalized euthanasia. 

Not only did these activists urge governments to permit voluntary mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide, many also supported the involuntary mercy-killing of handicapped people. For example, despite his knowledge of widespread Nazi murder of people with disabilities, in 1943 the ESA’s president thought it was a good idea to legalize euthanasia in time for returning veterans who suffered from mental and physical wounds. 

As recently as 2000, Derek Humphry proclaimed that because of escalating health care costs the elderly had a “duty to die.” 

There was a good deal else in my book which would cause eye brows to arch in this day and age. The picture that emerged from my account was of a movement which harbored many people like the infamous “Dr. Death,” Jack Kevorkian, whose views on end-of-life care included the beliefs that experiments should be performed on dying persons and the mercy-killing of individuals whether or not they requested it was perfectly ethical. 

The overlap between the eugenics and euthanasia movements was particularly eye-opening. For much of the twentieth century the same people who urged governments to permit mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide typically applauded the courts and elected officials when they legalized the forced sterilization of people with disabilities. 

My research did not always go smoothly. One right-to-die activist warned me that if I included anything he said to me over the phone he would sue me and my publisher. Clearly, the right-to-die movement did not like the contents of my book. Some in the movement must have regretted that I had gained access to their archives in the first place. 

But the story did not end there. About five years after the book’s publication, I was contacted by a US graduate student researching the history of euthanasia. She told me that in trying to track down the ESA records she had been informed that the collection had been intentionally destroyed. 

Just this year another US graduate student got in touch with me, also trying to locate the ESA archives. She too has been told the records no longer exist, although she is still investigating. 

Of course, it might be that the ESA records are sitting somewhere safe and sound. Yet why do groups like Compassion and Choices ignore my own requests for information? Why, when a published scholar in the history of medicine enquires about the whereabouts of this important archive, is there a resounding silence? 

Yet, if, as is highly likely, this magnificent archive is gone forever, one is perfectly entitled to call the right-to-die movement to account. What are they afraid of? The historical truth? 

As a researcher, I am saddened and angry that such a treasure trove is likely gone forever. The scholarly community rightly protests when a similar destruction of historical records occurs. It’s time that its outrage was directed against the people who today tell us mercy-killing and doctor-assisted suicide are the latest “freedoms” you and I ought to enjoy. 

In light of the disappearance of the ESA archives, can they be trusted?

Ian Dowbiggin, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, teaches history at the University of Prince Edward Island. He is the author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (2003) and A Concise History of Euthanasia (2006).

More quasi academic euthanasia reports from Jocelyn Downie

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jocelyn Downie

Dalhousie University professor and euthanasia activist, Jocelyn Downie, has recently received a Trudeau Fellowship to conduct end-of-life research. According to the Dalhousie media release:

Prof. Downie ... will receive $225,000 over three years and has already begun her research associated with the fellowship. In June, she gathered a group of international end-of-life experts in Amsterdam to discuss how to best track incidences of assisted dying in Canada.

Downie is a leading euthanasia activist who published the book Dying Justice: A case for decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada (2004) and who is responsible for several "one-sided" quasi academic reports that were written by stacked committee's of like-minded academics without effective input from academics who disagree.

One report was the Royal Society of Canada End-of-Life Decision Making report that was written to undermine opposing positions to euthanasia and assisted suicide and to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Another report was: A Model Conscientious Objection Policy for Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons from the Conscience Research Group, which was another stacked committee of like-minded academics. The "Model Conscientious Objection Policy" is designed to force healthcare professionals, who refuse to participate in procedures that they deem to be wrong, such as euthanasia and assisted suicide, to be required to refer their patients to a physician who will be involved with causing death.

The most recent is the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying that features a stacked committee of pro-euthanasia leaders and academics to produce quasi academic one-sided reports that are sold to the world as legitimate research. 

I challenge her to accept and include legitimate opposing input and positions that are published within her "research."

Provincial government appoints pro-euthanasia panel to devise euthanasia laws.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC)

The Ontario Government is spearheading its own "expert panel" on euthanasia and assisted suicide in conjunction with many Provinces and Territories.

The panel has set-up an online survey with skewed questions. Several of the online survey questions only offer pro-euthanasia possibilities therefore we are  urging you to send your thoughts by email to: endoflifedecisions@ontario.ca.

The Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group features a stacked deck with: co-chair, Maureen Taylor, (the widow of Dr Donald Low who demanded the legalization of assisted dying in a video that was released after his death) who describes herself, on Twitter, as an advocate of assisted death, Jocelyn Downie is Canada's leading promoter of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and Arthur Schaefer is another long-time advocate of euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

One member of the committee opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide. The committee will state that they are not a one-sided committee when in fact the committee is stacked.

Hugh Scher

EPC legal counsel Hugh Scher commented:

The provincial and territorial inquiry into assisted suicide is premature in light of the present study under way by the Federal government. In particular, there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of provincial regimes regulating assisted death as health care, when such conduct and its regulation have historically fallen under the federal government’s criminal law powers under the Constitution.

Dying With Dignity, an assisted suicide lobby group, who support the panel, stating in their Media Release that:

"We are excited to learn more about the provincial panelists and the contributions each of them will bring to the table," said Morris. "We are especially pleased that Maureen Taylor will serve as co-chair. As the widow of Dr. Donald Low, she has first-hand experience of the brutal, unnecessary suffering that can occur when physician assisted dying is not accessible."

The euthanasia lobby appears to have influenced the Ontario Government to establish a biased panel, similar to the Royal Society of Canada report, to counter the Consultation on Legislative Options for Assisted Dying launched by the Federal government in July. 

Even though the questions are skewed, please complete the online survey.

For further comments contact: 

• Alex Schadenberg at: 519-851-1434 (cell) or
• Hugh Scher at: 416-816-6115 (cell)

Academic Paper critical of euthanasia released in Tasmania.

Paul Russell with
Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published today on their blog.

By Paul Russell

Academic Paper (link): “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” 

In February this year, the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings and Nick McKim MP released a discussion paper on euthanasia seeking submissions and input from the community on a draft proposal for legislation they referred to as 'Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD)'. Their intention to work towards this legislative change had been originally announced in mid-2010.

Any debate on voluntary assisted dying is going to be difficult, but as elected representatives we believe it is our responsibility to take on the challenging questions of reform to ensure that our laws in this area are contemporary, transparent and in-line with community expectations. (from the VAD paper's introduction)

We understand that there were in excess of 900 responses to the ‘discussion paper’. The closing date for submissions was March 15. One canny observer wondered if it was simply a coincidence that the consultation ended on the ‘Ides of March’ – I’ll leave readers to ponder that for themselves.

Giddings and McKim gave no undertaking in the paper that they would produce a summary report of findings and, to date and with the bill to be debated in a week, there is no sign that the authors intend to share the results for the benefit of the discussion and transparency.

At the time of the paper’s launch, RealDignityTasmania spokesman, Dr. Paul Dunne made the following observation:

The paper employs selective and deficient research, much of which is funded by known pro-euthanasia advocates, designed to paint a picture of flawless implementation of legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide systems around the world. The main authorities cited by Giddings and McKim are the result of known pro-euthanasia initiatives. Key evidence has been ignored in this paper.

Also aware of this bias, the HOPE submission argued for a broader public discussion:

Given that this presentation provides the VAD paper with an ‘advanced status of authority’ we believe that it is inappropriate for the VAD paper to stand in the public square without the same opportunity being advanced to the contrary argument.  (HOPE submission page 23)

This all adds to the conclusion that this whole affair is essentially an exercise in gnostic paternalism. All of us, for reasons unknown, should trust that Giddings and McKim have done all the hard work of study for us, so we needn’t worry ourselves over the detail but simply accept that they know what’s best for Tasmanians!

The HOPE submission concluded with this warning:

Without a conscious attempt by the authors of the VAD paper to provide public access to the contrary argument on a par with that afforded the VAD; Tasmanians will have been denied the opportunity to exercise rational judgement – choice. The authors, in advancing their agenda, need also to observe the precautionary principle, with the highest standards of proof, lest, without such appropriate scrutiny, Tasmanian citizens are put at risk of their lives by such legislation.

With a week until the resumption of the parliament, two Tasmanian academics have released their own report on the discussion paper. Jeremy Pritchard holds a PhD in law and is a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) in the field of Criminology. Hannah Graham is an Associate Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology and a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Law at UTAS.

Their 34 page analysis entitled: “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” is critical of the approach taken by the Giddings/McKim paper, summarizing that:

“…the paper produced by Giddings and McKim does not constitute a compelling evidence-based case for changing the law. The risks of proceeding with the model that they propose are not justified.”

They observe that:

"A number of the claims that they make inappropriately imply concrete facts"(i.e. sentiments along the lines of “the evidence has spoken” and “our research shows…”) without acknowledging the depth of international contention on certain topics." 

“…significant amounts of empirical evidence and alternative academic and professional perspectives have been understated or omitted in their paper.” 

”We look at what is being proposed and what is missing. In particular, we analyse what is missing from Giddings and McKim’s portrayal of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.”

The author’s media statement today provides a good summary: 

“We felt that a response in the form of a research paper was necessary because Lara Giddings and Nick McKim’s paper, to our view, understates the complexity of international evidence and debate on the topic of euthanasia. Our paper disagrees with a number of their claims and incorporates literature which was not included in their document. We reference over 180 sources, mainly academic publications and government reports.”

Giddings and McKim’s paper relied substantially upon certain select academic papers cited without due regard for known criticisms. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, they cited the Royal Society of Canada report, the UK Commission on Assisted Dying and the recent report from the think-tank, Australia 21 which all adopted a similar line of argument, likewise omitting or dismissing references to studies and analyses that put the counter argument. 

One could observe that such circular and almost exclusive referencing (each report building upon the others) was a potential ‘perfect storm’ in the making. Nor is it a stretch to observe that, whether deliberate or not, the absence of serious critique of the ‘vulnerable persons’ question could leave the authors of these papers open to a claim that this could, itself, constitute abuse by neglect.

Graham and Pritchard deal with the issues of Elder Abuse, Disability, Feminist perspectives, the Slippery Slope arguments as well as a thorough review of the literature pertaining to Belgium, The Netherlands, Oregon and the Fleming Court case in Ireland.

They conclude:

“Based on the evidence and experiences presented in this paper, we conclude that there are unjustifiable risks in proceeding with the euthanasia law reform proposed by Giddings and McKim.”

The same might also be said for the debates current in Quebec, France, England and Scotland.

We eagerly await a reply from the Premier and Mr McKim.

The book Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide by Alex Schadenberg analyses the studies that confirm that the risk to vulnerable people is real, that vulnerable people in places such as The Netherlands and Belgium are at risk.

The book retails for $20.00. For more information and to purchase your copy. Link. 

The inconsistent philosophy of an assisted suicide campaigner.

By Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg on right.

For many years, Margaret Battin has been a well known leader of the assisted suicide lobby in America. Over the past few years she has become known for the care of her husband, Brooke Hopkins, who experienced a bicycle accident, in which he broke his neck and has been living with quadriplegia since November 14, 2008.

Hopkins had recently retired as an English professor at the University of Utah, when the accident occurred. His accident has challenged some of Battin’s long-held beliefs related to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The following article is a synopsis of an article that was written by Robin Marantz Henig and published in the New York Times on July 17, 2013, under the title: A Life or Death Situation. The New York Times article appears balanced in its approach.

Euthanasia is an action or omission of an action that directly and intentionally causes the death of a person, for reasons of mercy. The death is directly and intentionally caused.

Assisted suicide is the direct and intentional involvement in a suicide by providing the means of death, or by counseling or encouraging a person to commit suicide.

Euthanasia

Withdrawing medical treatment, if the person dies, is a natural death and is not a form of euthanasia or assisted suicide. The definition of medical treatment has been expanded to include hydration and nutrition. Hydration and nutrition should not be defined as medical treatment but rather medical care.

There were times that Hopkins could have died by asking that medical treatment be withdrawn. Americans have the right to have medical treatment withheld or withdrawn.

Hopkins has continued to live by not withdrawing medical treatment, but like every human being, he has gone through periods of emotional strength and also periods of depression connected to feelings of hopelessness.

The article states that a year before the accident Hopkins had updated his “living will” to state that should he suffer a grievous illness or injury leading to a terminal condition or vegetative state, he wanted no procedures done that:

“would only serve to prolong the moment of my death and to unnaturally postpone or prolong the dying process.”

The article provides insight by stating:

“If Peggy (Margaret) had been there and known the extent of Brooke’s injury, she might have urged the rescuers not to revive him. … But Peggy wasn’t there, and Brooke … was kept breathing with a hand-pumped air bag during the ambulance ride to University Hospital, three miles away. As soon as he got there, he was attached to a ventilator.”

The article then states:

“By the time Peggy arrived and saw her husband ensnared in the life-sustaining machinery he hoped to avoid, decisions about intervention already had been made.”

This is a very important point considering the fact that Hopkins has lived nearly 5 years since his accident and he continues to live today.

The theme of the article is: Suffering, suicide, euthanasia, a dignified death – these were subjects she had thought and written about for years, and now, suddenly, they turned unbearably personal. … she would watch lofty ideas be trumped by reality – and would discover just how messy, raw and muddled the end of life can be.

Brooke Hopkins, Margaret Battin

The article points out that, after the accident, Battin wondered: “What if my whole life has been wrong?” Her whole life had involved writing “wheelbarrows full” of books and articles championing self-determination in dying.

Battin has been a long-time defender of euthanasia and all of the groups that promote euthanasia. The article states:

“Nor did she run from fringe groups like NuTech, … or Soars (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide). … She also found common purpose with … Compassion and Choices, that push for legislation or ballot initiatives” 

“At the heart of her argument was her belief in autonomy.”

Even though Battin has been a euthanasia activist the article states that she was now faced with a dilemma:

“It (euthanasia) is not about terminally ill people in general in a kind of abstract way now, its also about my husband, Brooke. I still love him, that’s a simple fact. What if he wanted to die? Can I imagine standing by while his ventilator was switched off?”

This is a key issue in the New York Times article. Battin appears to be constantly examining Hopkins medical treatment issues within the framework of whether or not this or that decision represents what a euthanasia lobby leader should do. She appears conflicted. This conflict creates a lasting difficulty for her and for Hopkins.

One of the issues is the cost of caring for a person with complications related to quadriplegia. The article explains that Battin and Hopkins created a 24-hour care-team. Hopkins medical needs and the care-team are partly paid for by the University of Utah’s health insurance, partly paid by Medicare and yet they pay about $250,000 per year, mainly for the cost of the 12 care-givers.

Depression and treatment issues

The New York Times article candidly covers the issue of depression.

Hopkins admits that he has experienced significant bouts with depression. He stated that he recognized the feeling, having struggled with bipolar disorder since adolescence.

Hopkins explained how he has good days and bad days. The article describes how he enjoys his friends playing music or reading with him, reading and writing, walking in the park, being with his step-children.

But on his bad days: “these pleasures fade, and everything about his current life seems bleak.”

The article then quotes Battin:

“Depression is not uncommon in winter. It’s important to think positive thoughts.”

Brooke Hopkins

Hopkins responds:

“Basically I dislike being dependent, that’s all,” 

“One thing I don’t like is people speaking for me, though.”

Battin responded:

“And that includes me?”

Hopkins states:

“Yes, I don’t like that.”

It is important that Hopkins has been teaching part time for the University of Utah’s adult-education program. Many people with disabilities are unable to find employment and become dependent on others.

The article reported an interesting interaction with Battin while Hopkins was teaching his class. Battin was concerned about how he looked and how he was reacting to his students.

Battin stated:

“He’s never looked this bad.” She asked him: “Are you O.K.?”

Hopkins responded:

“I’m fine, don’t worry”

Battin continued being concerned about the mucus in his lungs and inquired about his CoughAssist therapy. Hopkins said he didn’t want it while the class was there. Battin urged him to try albuterol instead, Hopkins said no, Battin insisted, so finally Hopkins gave in. Class resumed.

You will notice how Battin's constant fear about her husbands health leads her to skew her theory on how people are pressured by family and friends.

His “Final Letter”

On July 28, 2012 Hopkins decided that he couldn’t go on living. Battin proofread and typed the "Final Letter." Battin decided that his decision was: carefully considered, serious and sincere, autonomous, that her husband was fully alert, the very situation that she had spent her career defending.

“She reasoned that Brooke had the right, as a mentally competent patient, to reject medical interventions that could further prolong his life.”

It must be noted that withholding or withdrawing medical treatment is not the same as euthanasia or assisted suicide.

From that point, the articles states that, Battin shifted from being Brooke’s devoted lifeline to being the midwife to his death.

And yet in August 2012, when Hopkins became uncomfortable and delirious from breathing problems, caused from pneumonia, Battin brought him to the emergency room.

On August 18, 2012 Hopkins stated that he wanted to ‘soldier on’ despite difficulties.

Hydration and Nutrition

The ‘living will’ that Hopkins had signed the year before his accident also stated that he wished to avoid:

 “administration of sustenance and hydration.”

In August 2012, Hopkins had a bout of pneumonia that hospitalized him for several weeks. In order to avoid infections Hopkins agreed to have a feeding tube inserted.

Feeding tubes are an effective way to provide fluids and food. Fluids and food by feeding tube should not be defined as a medical treatment because they do not treat a condition but rather provide for the basic necessaries of life.

The article stated:

“In his prior life, Hopkins couldn’t have imagined tolerating a feeding tube; he loved eating too much.” 

“Thus a man who had always taken great joy in preparing, sharing and savoring food decided to give up his final sensory pleasure in order to go on living. He swears he doesn’t miss it.”

Hopkins stated:

 “You can get used to anything.”

A Desire to die.

It appears clear from the article that Hopkins desire to die fluctuates.

Hopkins states that if he was given the choice of going to the hospital or dying, that he would choose dying. But at the same time he states that when he was brought to the hospital that Battin made the “right call.”

Hopkins clarifies his statement by saying: 

‘What I mean is I’m done doing this stuff in the hospital. But I’m not ready to die yet.’

Battin is trying to learn how a transient despair differs from a deep and abiding decision to die. 

The article states:

“What has changed,” she told me, “is my sense of how extremely complex, how extremely textured, any particular case is.” This realization is infinitely more fraught when you’re inextricably invested in the outcome and when the signals your loved one sends are not only hard to read but also are constantly in flux. 

“Proponents (euthanasia movement) generally focus on only one branch of the decision tree: the moment of choosing death. There’s much talk of living wills, D.N.R. orders, suicide, withdrawal of life support, exit strategies. Brooke’s experience has forced Peggy to step back from that moment to an earlier one: the moment of confronting one’s own horrific circumstances and choosing, at least for now, to keep on living.

Battin then admits that her own desires also shift from day to day. The article states:

She is deeply afraid of misunderstanding Brooke’s wishes in a way that can’t be undone. The worst outcome, to her, would be to think that this time he really does want to die and then to feel as if she might have been wrong.

This statement by Battin provides insight into the mindset of a committed euthanasia proponent. She fears making a wrong decision that allows Hopkins to live. The greater fear should be that she makes a wrong decision that causes Hopkins to die.

Psychiatrist, Harvey Chochinov, has done significant research into the issue of the "Will to Live" and has designed a program titled: Dignity Therapy. Chochinov proves that it is normal for the will to live to fluctuate.

While Hopkins is living a plethora of choices remain available. When he is dead, no further choices remain.

Rejecting those who oppose assisted suicide.

The article examines the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The article states: 

opponents who say that helping the terminally ill to die will lead eventually to pressure being put on vulnerable people — the elderly, the poor, the chronically disabled, the mentally ill — to agree to die to ease the burden on the rest of us.

Battin rejects those who oppose euthanasia. The article states:

The scholarly work she is most proud of is a study she conducted in 2007, which is one of the first to look empirically at whether people are being coerced into choosing to end their lives. Peggy was reassured when she and her colleagues found that in Oregon and the Netherlands, two places that allow assisted dying, the people who used it tended to be better off and more educated than the people in groups considered vulnerable.

The study Battin conducted in 2007 relied on the “official data” from the Netherlands and Oregon which is not sufficient to prove her hypothesis. The data from the Netherlands and Oregon is incomplete at best because it is based on reports that are submitted by the doctors who caused the death. Inconsistencies with the law are not reported because people do not self-report that they broke the law.

Further to that, just because people who die by euthanasia or assisted suicide tend to be wealthier or better educated doesn’t preclude them from experiencing abuse. People who experience elder abuse are more likely to be wealthier than average.

Link to my previous article on Margaret Battin's 2007 study.

The article then states:

What Peggy has become more aware of now is the possibility of the opposite, more subtle, kind of coercion — not the influence of a greedy relative or a cost-conscious state that wants you to die, but pressure from a much-loved spouse or partner who wants you to live. The very presence of these loved ones undercuts the notion of true autonomy. We are social beings, and only the unluckiest of us live in a vacuum; for most, there are always at least a few people who count on us, adore us and have a stake in what we decide. Everyone’s autonomy abuts someone else’s.

Battin should realize that her comments go both ways. I am not convinced that the “greedy relative” is a common phenomenon, but I know from the many phone calls that I have received that subtle pressure is being placed on people while they are in a vulnerable condition.

Battin states that: 

“The very presence of these loved ones undercuts the notion of true autonomy” and that “Everyone’s autonomy abuts someone else’s.” 

These are true statements, but these statements support the need to prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide. True autonomy, as presented by the euthanasia lobby is an illusion. Everyone is effected by others.

Battin is then quoted as stating that she is:

“committed to two moral constructs in end-of-life decision making: autonomy and mercy. 

“Only where both are operating — that is, where the patient wants to die and dying is the only acceptable way for the patient to avoid pain and suffering — is there a basis for physician-assisted dying, … Neither principle is sufficient in and of itself and, in tandem, the two principles operate as safeguards against abuse.”

It is interesting that Battin has moved from a position of autonomy alone to one of autonomy and mercy.

Battin should recognize that “mercy” is a two-edged sword. Mercy can be oriented to the relief of suffering or it can be oriented to the elimination of the sufferer. Mercy can be based on a genuine concern for the "other" while it can also be based on a concern for the "self." We cannot rely on an ethic of mercy, that is easily distorted, in order to determine who lives or who dies.

One day Hopkins announced that he wanted all of his machines disconnected. After a short skirmish, all of his machines were disconnected.

Hopkins put his head back, closed his eyes and waited to die. After several minutes passed he opened his eyes and said: 

“I didn’t die?”

He then had everything re-attached. He felt refreshed, as if he had made it through some sort of trial and three hours later his students arrived and he began teaching.

By withdrawing all medical treatment, Hopkins thought that he would die, but without knowing it, he wasn’t ventilator dependent. He breathed on his own. He lived.

If euthanasia or assisted suicide were legal in Utah, he might have been given a lethal injection. Whether he was ventilator dependent or not, he would have been dead.

Clearly there is a difference between killing and letting die. To withhold or withdraw medical treatment is not the same as euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The story ends by informing us that Hopkins has written another “farewell letter” stating that he intends to die in the Spring of 2014. I hope that instead, he decides to ‘soldier on’ despite his difficulties.

Brooke Hopkins died on July 31, 2013.

P.S. Margaret Battin's 2007 study and then the subsequent Royal Society of Canada study and the Falconer Commission report led me to write the book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. The euthanasia lobby relies on limited data to establish the false conclusion that legalizing euthanasia is safe.

Link to a previous articles:
- Expert in Irish assisted suicide court case claims that no abuse of vulnerable people occurs.
- Euthanasia campaigner shows signs of wavering on the issue.
- Margaret Battin research article was false when published in 2007 and it is false today.

Memorial to the victims of euthanasia, being built in Germany

The Berlin media is reporting that the German is building a memorial to all the victims of the T4 Nazi euthanasia program in Berlin.

Euthanasia victims memorial

The article states:

Building work began in Berlin on Monday for the city's fourth official monument to victims of Adolf Hitler's National Socialist government. 

The planned exhibit at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in the capital will be dedicated to the victims of the "euthanasia" program used by the Nazis to kill those with physical or mental illnesses. Hitler's Nazi regime killed more than 200,000 people who were either psychotherapy patients or physically disabled between January 1940 and August 1941. 

The euthanasia program was run out of the same Tiergartenstrasse address and was even codenamed "T4." A commemorative plaque has adorned the site since 1986. 

The German minister for cultural state affairs, Bernd Neumann, attended the laying of the foundation stone on Monday, saying that the monument should set a sign "against hate, delusion and coldheartedness - and for tolerance, empathy and a respect for life."

It is important to understand the history of the Nazi euthanasia program. Most people believe that what happened in Nazi Germany has no historical connection to the modern day pro-euthanasia ideology. 

The euthanasia philosophy came from the eugenics movement. In Germany, a book entitled: Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life was written by Binding and Hoche and published in 1920. This book was the catalyst for the Nazi euthanasia program.

I have read Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life several times. This book goes through a systematic explanation of why society should permit euthanasia and how it is more compassionate and better for society to kill people with disabilities or people who have chronic or terminal conditions.

Then read the Groningen Protocol. They are very similar. Link.

Then read the report of the Royal Society of Canada. Link.

Links to other articles about the T-4 Nazi euthanasia program.

* The victims of Nazi euthanasia have been forgotten.

* Holocaust memorial day. Let's not forget the key role doctors played.

* The eugenic philosophy is alive in our culture.