Senator Denise Batters speech in the Senate opposing euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Senator Denise Batters has been one of the most clear and effective voices in Canada's Senate opposing euthanasia for mental illness. Bill C-7, that passed on March 17, 2021, legalized euthanasia for mental illness alone, but with a two year moratorium for implementation. 

The attached video is the speech by Senator Batters, in the Senate, concerning Bill C-39, a bill to delay the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness, for one year, until March 17, 2024. Dr Batters husband, Dave Batters, was a Member of Parliament when he died by suicide on June 29, 2009.

Senator Denise Batters

Senator Batters states in her speech.

• Euthanasia for mental illness alone is abhorrent.
• Bill C-7 (passed in March 2021) which eliminated the requirement that people must be terminally ill to die by euthanasia, has led to the slippery slope with veterans with PTSD dying by euthanasia and disabled and impoverished Canadians are deciding to end their lives by euthanasia.
• The parliamentary committee on MAiD has recommended to expand euthanasia to children.
• Psychiatrists are warning that euthanasia should not be extended to people with mental illness, in response the government is delaying the implementation to gain time to sell Canadians on the concept.
• A recent Angus Reid survey found that only 31% of Canadians support euthanasia for mental illness.
• Batters' very first social media post and article was entitled: Help the mentally ill, don't kill them.
• Originally Bill C-7 excluded euthanasia for mental illness. The Senate passed an amendment to the bill to require euthanasia for mental illness and the government accepted the amendment but with a two-year moratorium for implementation.
• During the Bill C-7 debate, euthanasia for mental illness was never studied by a committee of the Parliament or Senate.
• The parliamentary committee on MAiD studied further of expansion of euthanasia, to minors and by advanced consent.
• Mental illness is not irremediable, one of the criteria required in the law.
• Recovery from mental illness is possible, but cannot be predicted.
• Dr John Maher, a respected psychiatrist who specializes in difficult cases, calls euthanasia for mental illness - facilitated suicide.
• Advocates of euthanasia for mental illness have changed their argument from it being an irremediable medical condition to an inaccessible medical condition.
• One psychiatrist has stated that she would consider a long waiting list for psychiatric treatment as it being an irremediable medical condition.
• There are problems with access to Canada's healthcare system. The answer is to fix that system, not to confirm a mentally ill persons feeling of hopeless and offer them the lethal means to suicide.
• As a compassionate society we have the obligation to hold hope for mentally ill Canadians when they don't hold hope for themselves.

False claims by the government concerning euthanasia for mental illness.

• Justice Minister David Lametti claims that euthanasia for mental illness has been mandated by the courts. This is not true. The Carter and Truchon cases did not rule on the constitutionality of euthanasia for mental illness alone.
• The government and euthanasia lobby falsely claim that euthanasia for physical or psychological suffering are equivalent. A mental illness is not terminal. Death is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome. Mental illness is not irremediable and it is unpredictable.
• Suicidality can be a symptom of mental illness.
• To recognize the difference between physical and mental illness is not discriminatory but a simple acknowledgement of fact.
• Canadians with mental illness do not have full access to treatment and support options.
• This is not equality for people with mental illness but a complete dereliction of our duty.
• The gaps in our treatment of mental illness are leading to people seeking death.
• I am livid that the government is offering death rather than treatment.

Recommendations:

• We should be using the year of delay for implementing euthanasia for mental illness to actually provide an in-depth study into whether we should be implementing euthanasia for mental illness.
• Justice Minister Lametti has stated that the delay is to allow everyone to internalize the standards and allow universities to prepare teaching material. This is bunk.

Conclusion:

• The tide is turning and the government has actually delayed euthanasia for mental illness to give them more time to do a sell job to Canadians.
• The government is delaying euthanasia for mental illness because psychiatrists and professionals are against it. Canadians are not ready for it either.
• The rest of the world is looking at Canada's euthanasia law with shock as we have become the most permissive country in the world.
• Since everyone is uncomfortable with it, it is probably an indication that we are doing something wrong. We need to stop this runaway train before it's too late.
• The one year delay to euthanasia for mental illness is a start, but it is only a start. This government needs to completely re-evaluate extending euthanasia for mental illness. They have gone too far with this ideological experiment and are headed straight for the abyss.
• The law has gone too far for psychiatrists, too far for Canadians and it is hurting people who desperately need us to preserve hope, people with mental illness.

We must not let people with mental illness down.

Article: Senator Denise Batters: Help the mentally ill, Don't kill them (Link).

Saskatchewan 811 Health Line Stops Promoting Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

CBC News Saskatchewan reporter Laura Sciarpelletti on September 19 published that the Saskatchewan Health Authority 811 help line removed the link to the Medical Aid in Dying (euthanasia) program.

According to the CBC News report Everett Hindley, Saskatchewan's Minister of Mental Health sent out a message stating:

"It does not make sense to greet people with a message that could potentially imply that suicide is an option,"

Hindley's office confirmed with CBC News that it was their office that directed that euthanasia be removed from the 811 help line. Hindley's office stated that they were contacted by "a mental health and suicide prevention advocate for whom suicide is a deeply personal issue."

Senator Denise Batters

Donovan Maess a CTV News Regina Multi Media Journalist spoke to Senator Denise Batters, who is a well known mental health advocate, as stating:

Hearing that health line message, I knew it was very problematic and needed to change,”

“When I contacted the minister, he agreed.”

Maxine Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada also ran a campaign to remove the euthanasia service from the 811 health help line. Bernier, who voted in favour of euthanasia, told Maess, from CTV News that:

“The promotion of that option is out there all the time,”

“The government should not be promoting that when you call the health emergency line.”

Batters told Maess that:

“We need to be providing people with mental illness with better treatment,”

“We need to offer people real resources and real help, not just an easier way to access suicide.”

It is good news that the Saskatchewan government has removed euthanasia (MAiD) from it's 811 health help line but the battle has just begun. Canadian provinces have a MAiD service and some of these services have even been promoting MAiD even on hospital electronic billboards in the emergency room.

Euthanasia Bill C-7 is delayed until February 2021

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with two Liberals voting against the Bill on December 10, Justice Minister Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec to extend the time-frame to February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. The Superior court of Quebec granted the federal government the extension.

*Join more than 50,000 people by signing and sharing the EPC Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link). 

 
The Canadian Press reported on December 17 that the Senate will not vote on Bill C-7 until mid-February:

Senate, Sen. Marc Gold, concedes that the upper house won’t finish its consideration of Bill C-7 until mid-February — long past the previous court-imposed deadline that was set to expire Friday.

Article: Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators (Link).

Senator Denise Batters

Dale Smith reported in an article published in the CBA National on December 14 stated that Senator Denise Batters, the Deputy Chair of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional affairs committee, is not in a hurry to pass Bill C-7 and recognizes that amendments to Bill C-7 may be necessary:

Conservative Senator Denise Batters, a lawyer and former chief of staff to the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan, ...says that she is most concerned that the bill potentially violates the Section 15 Charter rights of persons with disabilities, and with the removal of the 10-day waiting period.

"The lower court Truchon decision struck down the requirement for a 'reasonably foreseeable' death in order to access assisted dying," says Batters. "It did not call for the removal of safeguards around the practice. Yet Justice Minister Lametti's response, Bill C-7, unnecessarily proposes the removal of not only that 10-day waiting period, but the loosening of a number of other safeguards."

Batters says that given the parliamentary calendar, even meeting a new February date will be challenging.

Thank you to everyone who has contacted Senators. If you have not done so, please contact the Senators by mail or email. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

Five Year Review of Canada's euthanasia law will likely begin in January. The Senate may amend euthanasia Bill C-7

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) National News has reported that the Five Year Review of Canada's (MAiD) euthanasia law that was legislated to begin in June 2020 will likely begin in January 2021.

Dale Smith reported in an article published in the CBA National on December 14 stated that:

Sources within the Liberal caucus have told CBA National that they have been told the five-year legislative review of the existing MAiD regime is slated to start in January, though this has not been announced publicly. That review was supposed to begin in June, but was pushed off because of the pandemic and the inability to come to an agreement on how to ensure that Parliament would keep functioning throughout it.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is concerned by statements made by Justice Minister, David Lametti, indicating that the government intends to review the issues not dealt with by Bill C-7. Bill C-7 passed in parliament and is currently being debated in the Senate.

Lametti has stated on several occassions that the review will focus on issues related to child euthanasia, euthanasia for mental illness alone and enabling people to validly request euthanasia in their power of attorney for health care (living will).

The bill that legalized euthanasia in June 2016, legislated that a full review of the law was to begin in June 2020. EPC supports a full review of the law, not simply a review that is limited to issues oriented to further expanding the law.

Article: Changes to the law are premature since the government has not done its mandated parliamentary review (Link).

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with only two Liberals voting against the Bill, Justice Minister Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec to extend the time-frame to February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. Therefore the time restraint placed on the Senate to pass Bill C-7 may be lifted.

Article: Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators (Link).

Senator Denise Batters

The Senate may amend Bill C-7.

Smith also reported for the CBA National that Conservative Senator Denise Batters, the Deputy Chair of the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee, is not in a hurry to pass Bill C-7 and she recognizes that amendments to Bill C-7 may be necessary. Smith wrote:

Conservative Senator Denise Batters, a lawyer and former chief of staff to the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan, says that if Lametti had read the committee's interim report, he would have seen that there were "major flaws" in the bill that she says will prove problematic in the Senate.

Batters says that she is still evaluating whether to move amendments to the bill, but says that she is most concerned that the bill potentially violates the Section 15 Charter rights of persons with disabilities, and with the removal of the 10-day waiting period.

"The lower court Truchon decision struck down the requirement for a 'reasonably foreseeable' death in order to access assisted dying," says Batters. "It did not call for the removal of safeguards around the practice. Yet Justice Minister Lametti's response, Bill C-7, unnecessarily proposes the removal of not only that 10-day waiting period, but the loosening of a number of other safeguards."

Batters says that given the parliamentary calendar, even meeting a new February date will be challenging.

You need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Now that parliament passed Bill C-7, without amendments, you need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Based on the language of Bill C-7 and the fact that some parts of the legislation appear to be unconstitutional (if Bill C-7 is passed, without amendments, future court decisions will once again widen the application of the law) therefore it is possible that the Senate will amend the bill, something that the Liberal government refused to do.

Senator Denise Batters, the Conservative vice-chair of the legal affairs committee told CBC news that:

"Minister Lametti is kidding himself if he thinks that the Senate will rubber-stamp this bill. And if he is under the illusion that it's only Conservative senators who have serious concerns about this legislation, he clearly wasn't paying attention when he testified before our Senate legal committee two weeks ago," she said.

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with only two Liberals voting against Bill C-7, Justice Minister David Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec for an extension until February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. This means that the time restraint placed on the Senate to pass Bill C-7 may be lifted.

You need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.” 

Psychiatric euthanasia is a death sentence for depressed people.

By Mark Hodges (EPC Researcher)

“This is for all the lonely people, thinking that life has passed them by: Don’t Give Up...” sang the pop group America in their 1974 number five hit song. Today, however, more and more doctors say to lonely people, “If you think life has passed you by, we’ll help kill you.” 

As we get older, it is normal to have regrets, or miss the exuberance of youth. The elderly can often experience reflective, sometimes melancholy moods. With age come various physical limitations and pains.

It often takes a loss of our youthful self-reliance to foster introspection necessary to recognize the most important things in life. “Teach me to number my days,” says the ancient proverb, “that I may gain a heart of wisdom.”

But today, instead of addressing the stages of life and its challenges, more and more doctors, where euthanasia is legal, are willing to end life --for no physical reason.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition explained.

“I have significant experience with people as they approach death, and it is natural to become unsure, or to feel your life has lost purpose, or to be depressed, or have feelings of loneliness. These are normal feelings,”  

“The sad reality with euthanasia and assisted suicide is that these normal feelings, once killing is legal, can become a death request, rather than a normal process of being human.”

Charles Bentz

Oregon Dr. Charles Bentz is just one example among many. His patient, an avid outdoorsman, was diagnosed with cancer, and became depressed. Dr. Bentz’ was asked to approve the assisted suicide death of his patient.

“I said, ‘Wait a minute... What’s going on? Let’s talk about this,” Dr. Bentz recounted. But his colleague “must have found someone else, because two weeks later his patient was dead from an overdose of a medication.”

“So my colleague saw a patient with depression, but instead of addressing his depression, she gave him the means to kill himself.”

Dr. Bentz’ experience is not unique.

In the Netherlands, a woman in her twenties suffering from post-traumatic stress was given a lethal injection –despite her documented improvement after therapy. Doctors even admitted that a request for death could be really a cry for help. The woman’s therapy “was temporarily partially successful,” yet she was killed anyway.

Another healthy woman was euthanized because she and her deceased husband had agreed not to go on living after one of them died. She was granted a lethal injection, even though she “did not feel depressed at all. She ate, drank and slept well. She followed the news and undertook activities.”

In 2014, a healthy Italian woman was killed at a Swiss suicide clinic because she was depressed over how she looked.

Rosie DiManno

The Toronto Star’s Rosie DiManno explains what happens when someone falls into dark despair. 

“The ‘black dog’ clinical depression…locks on with pit bull jaws. And you forget that it will pass or at least abate. In the moment, it feels unendurable. Sometimes, you want to die.”

DiManno reasons that clinical depression clouds one’s thinking, and therefore depressed patients should not be candidates for assisted suicide. She says:

“Descending into that dark place where hopelessness – and psychical fatigue, really, just so damn tired of misery – renders rational thought impossible”

Enabling suicide is the opposite of medical treatment. All the more so for depressed patients. DiManno criticizes Belgium and the Netherlands –which now kill non-terminal people suffering from “incurable distress”— as “knocking off the depressed, because that’s what they want, as if the deeply disconsolate can possibly make an informed decision.”

“Among those “approved’’ for death have been people with autism, anorexia, borderline personality disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, partial paralysis, manic depression, Alzheimer’s and a 24-year-old transgender man devastated by the failure of a sex-change surgery. None of these patients was dying. They just feel real bad… They were morbidly disconsolate and frail of mind. Which is a far sight from terminally ill and dying.”

Senator Denise Batters

Canada also legalized euthanasia for “psychological suffering.” Canadian Senator Denise Batters, whose husband died by suicide, spoke against assisted suicide for depression. 

“The committee did not require that illness be terminal or life-threatening. It included psychological suffering as grounds for physician-assisted death — without any requirement to consult a psychiatrist. It even recommended extending physician-assisted suicide to…those under 18.”

The New York Times ran an article pointing out that, 

“According to psychiatric experts, the vast majority of people requesting suicide are suffering from treatable depression, and no longer want to kill themselves once their underlying depression is resolved.” 

“Once the depression lifts and people can think more clearly, the therapists say, those who were determined to kill themselves are thankful to be alive, despite their pain or grim prognosis.”

Senator Batters argued.

“The preservation of hope for mentally ill people is absolutely paramount,” 

“Those who endure psychological suffering need our support, our resources and our promise that we will never give up on them, even when they can see no other option but to give up on themselves.”

An analysis of Maine’s new so-called “Death With Dignity” law noted that 

“severely depressed or mentally ill patients can receive assisted suicide without having any form of counseling.”

Indeed, there is nothing in existing Maine law (or Oregon, Washington, or Vermont law) that requires doctors to refer patients to a therapist in order to screen for treatable depression or mental illness before enabling their suicide.

Society’s response to depression in the elderly or in youth or for people with disabilities must not be to enable their death, but to reach out to them on a personal level, and connect them to people and activities that restore a sense of being loved and wanted.

Instead, the number of suicides keeps growing, along with the rising rates of depression. Our Western culture canonizing individualism only exacerbates the depression epidemic.

The Center for Disease Control documented that between 1999 and 2016, the suicide rate in America increased in every state (except Nevada, which remained in the top ten states for suicide).

Judith Shulevitz in The New Republic reports that one in three Americans over 45 identifies as chronically lonely. One survey found:

“One in four Americans (27 percent) rarely or never feels as though there are people who really understand them. Two in five Americans…feel that they are isolated from others (43 percent). One in five people report they rarely or never feel close to people (20 percent) or feel like there are people they can talk to (18 percent).”

Signs of depression include feelings of helplessness or hopelessness, a loss of interest in daily activities, and a loss of energy. A severely depressed person my also idealize suicide by talking about self-harm, becoming pre-occupied with death, or saying things like “everyone would be better off without me.”

Schadenberg reveals 

“Society can reduce the scourge of suicide and the cultural abandonment associated with assisted suicide by caring for and being with others at their time of need,” 

“It is essential that people who feel their life lacks value or purpose, or feel no one cares, are offered purpose, support and genuine hope from their significant community.”

Schadenberg concludes. 

“Suicide is a symptom of mental illness, not a cure for it,”  

“The answer is not only talking about it, the answer is inclusion, caring and being with others as they journey through the difficult times of their lives.” 

Tom Mortier

Tom Mortier, who wasn’t informed of his mother’s death until the day after a doctor killed her for being depressed commented 

“The big problem in our society is that we have apparently lost the meaning of taking care of each other,” 

Professor Gregory Crawford of the Australasian Chapter of Palliative Medicine for the Royal Australian College of Physicians emphasized that people asking to die often need to be diagnosed and treated for depression. He relayed an example of one of his terminal patients who wanted to die. He treated her for severe depression by changing her medication, and

“She made a miraculous improvement, both physically and psychologically. She improved and lived for another 12 months. She had serious, progressive disease but her physical function and her ability to interact and live improved. She went off on a holiday, achieved some other things on her wish list and made lots of other nice memories for her family. She died at home, supported by our palliative care.”

Crawford concluded. 

“It showed me that sometimes the symptoms of impending death and the symptoms of advanced depression can look very much the same,” 

Andrew Lawton

Another example is Canadian media personality Andrew Lawton. He shared.   

“Nearly seven years ago I overdosed on dozens of pills — causing multiple cardiac arrests and weeks in hospital on life support,” 

“Everything from the method to the date and time was meticulously thought out... I’m sure I could have sold my own suicide given how convinced I was that it was the right call. That wouldn’t have made it any less flawed a conclusion.”

Lawton continued

“Suicidal people are irrational... This is true even when decisions appear to be made through logic and reason.” 

“I appeared normal, despite not thinking normally. I saw suicide as the answer to pain I was convinced wouldn’t abate. I had tried myriad therapies, medications, and treatment throughout my years-long battle with depression. By the time I tried to pull the plug on my own existence, none had made an impact.”

After Lawton’s nearly successful suicide attempt, his attitude changed. Healing didn’t happen overnight, he says, and his circumstances didn’t change -- “but my outlook did.”

“In 2010, no one could have told me happiness was possible. Today, I am married to the love of my life, working in a successful career, and able to look forward each day — all just a few years after I signed my own death warrant.”

People who are depressed are in the middle of, as Alcoholics Anonymous puts it, “stinking thinking.” They need help out of their depression, not the enabling and furthering of their mental darkness by assisted death.

Senator Batters points out the fallacy in suicide as a treatment for depression. She argues

“Physical and psychological illnesses are (not) the same,”“Psychological suffering on its own is not terminal. It is usually treatable.”

 Lawton agrees. 

“Mental and physical illness can’t be lumped into one category,” 

“When illness is in the mind, rather than the body, it calls any decision into question — an irreversible one all the more so.”

Batters adds, 

“Delivering the means to suicide straight into the hands of mentally ill individuals directly contradicts the suicide prevention standard in the mental health field.”

Lawton concludes.

“The role of health-care practitioners is…not to enable one’s disordered thinking by killing them,”  

“State-sanctioned death doesn’t help the mentally ill — it robs them of a chance for healing.”

Another problem with legalizing suicide for depressed people is there is no legal standard for “unbearable suffering” or “incurable depression.”

A major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry concluded, “There is no evidence base to operationalize ‘unbearable suffering,’ there are no prospective studies of decision-making capacity in persons seeking EAS for psychiatric reasons, and the prognosis of patients labeled as ‘treatment-resistant depression’ varies considerably, depending on the population and the kind of treatments they receive.”

The British Medical Journal also published a study which concluded, “‘Unbearable suffering’ has not yet been defined adequately.” 

Schadenberg explains.

“People ask for euthanasia because they have lost hope. They may be in depression or experiencing distress, darkened by their reality, and feel that life has lost its purpose or value,”  

“In the past, doctors took this request to die as a cry for help, and they tried to find out what their patient needs to weather his or her overwhelming difficulty… I want a physician who will protect my life when I’m going through my deepest darkest times. When I’m going through that physical, psychological, emotional, or existential distress and I’m so darkened that I can’t see beyond my own difficulty, I need a physician who will say ‘no’ to me and will care for me, not kill me.”

Assisted suicide and euthanasia are not about freedom for the sufferer; it’s about abandoning the patient –particularly patients in despair. 

EPC: Write to Senators and Members of Parliament.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will be hearing interventions concerning Bill C-14, the bill that will legalize and “regulate” euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Last week, EPC urged you to contact the members of parliament on the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who hearing from groups and individuals from across Canada on Bill C-14

EPC needs you, to contact Canadian Senators, especially the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with your concerns about Bill C-14.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) presented to the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights this week and next week we will be presenting before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee. The Senate has the ability to amend or defeat Bill C-14. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is also organizing a rally on Parliament Hill on Wednesday June 1 from 12 noon to 1:30 pm.

Resources for your communicating with committee members:
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC - BC).
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet).

Speech in parliament by Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette opposing Bill C-14.

Contact information - Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs members:

Committee Chair: Senator Bob Runciman (CPC) bob.runciman@sen.parl.gc.ca

Deputy Chair: Senator Mobina Jaffer (Lib) mobina.jaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator George Baker (Lib) george.baker@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Denise Batters (CPC) denise.batters@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (IND) boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator James Cowan (Lib) jim.cowan@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Nicole Eaton (CPC) nicole.eaton@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Serge Joyal (Lib) serge.joyal@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Thomas Johnson McInnis (CPC) thomasjohnson.mcinnis@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Paul McIntyre (CPC) paul.mcintyre@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Donald Plett (CPC) don.plett@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Vernon White (CPC) senatorwhite@sen.parl.gc.ca

EPC urges you to send letters to Members of Parliament and Senators. Link to contact Members of Parliament. Link to contact Senators.

Letters to Members of Parliament and Senators can be mailed (Postage Free) when using the following address:

(Name) Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6

Senator (Name)

Senate of Canada

Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A4

Senator Denise Batters: Help the mentally ill. Don’t kill them

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Senator Denise Batters

The National Post featured a guest column, on March 14, 2016, by Senator Denise Batters concerning her opposition to the legalization of euthanasia for people with psychiatric issues. Senator Batters is a lawyer and a mental health advocate.

Previous article by Senator Batters.

Batters was widowed when Dave Batters, her husband, died by suicide in 2009 while he was a sitting member of parliament. Senator Batters experience with her husband's suicide led her to strongly oppose euthanasia for people who live with psychological suffering.

Senator Batters writes in her National Post column:

Questions surrounding suicide are deeply personal to me. I lost my husband, former member of Parliament Dave Batters, to suicide in 2009, after his struggle with severe anxiety and depression. In the years following his death, I have worked to raise awareness and dispel the stigma surrounding mental illness and suicide. That has included communicating to those struggling with mental illness, particularly with those who harbour thoughts of suicide, to encourage them not to give up, but to instead reach out for help. 

This is why I have reacted so strongly against the recent majority report of the joint parliamentary committee studying physician-assisted suicide. Polls show that most Canadians agree with physician-assisted suicide, but usually those poll questions (and Canadians) assume that only those with terminal illnesses would be given the option. Canadians want strict safeguards on who is eligible for assisted dying and legislators have the responsibility to provide that clarity. The committee report failed to provide either. Instead, it threw open the door to a number of shocking scenarios.

Senator Batters then comments on the Committee report:

The committee did not require that illness be terminal or life-threatening. It included psychological suffering as grounds for physician-assisted death — without any requirement to consult a psychiatrist. It even recommended extending physician-assisted suicide to “mature minors,” those under 18. ... 

The committee argued that physical and psychological illnesses are essentially the same. But, the only evidence it cited was a one-line opinion from a brief letter, emailed by an individual who did not appear before the committee and had no identifiable credentials or expertise in the area. This is not “evidence-based decision-making.”

Senator Batters then explains why Psychological suffering is different than physical suffering:

Psychological suffering on its own is not terminal. It is usually treatable, can be episodic and demands a far more complex decision-making process, particularly in determining patient consent. 

Significant gaps currently exist in our mental health system, including a lack of access to treatment, long wait lists and insufficient training for health-care providers. ... 

Delivering the means to suicide straight into the hands of mentally ill individuals directly contradicts the suicide prevention standard in the mental health field. How can we expect mental health caregivers to advocate suicide prevention on one hand, while signing the death warrant for a mentally ill patient with the other? 

The preservation of hope for mentally ill people is absolutely paramount. Those who endure psychological suffering need our support, our resources and our promise that we will never give up on them, even when they can see no other option but to give up on themselves.

Senator Batters completes the article by sharing her personal experiences:

I have lived for almost seven years now without my husband. I have picked up the pieces and moved forward, trying to create something meaningful out of our personal tragedy. And yet, not a day goes by when I don’t wonder if there might have been another way out for Dave — another counsellor, another medical treatment, another conversation that might have made the difference. Because of the finality of his choice, I will never know. 

I don’t want more Canadian families to know that kind of pain. In good conscience, we cannot allow physician-assisted suicide to become just another option for those who struggle with mental illness.

Because of the Supreme Court ruling, physician-assisted suicide will be part of our reality in Canada. But if you believe it should only apply in cases of terminal illness, and not to minors or those who are mentally ill, we need to make our voices heard on this issue — and fast. Please contact your local MP and tell them where you stand. The lives of our vulnerable loved ones might just depend on it.

Please participate in the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition post-card campaign to members of parliament. It is even better to send letters to your member of parliament. The list of members of parliament.