Marieke Vervoort: an athlete’s influence used for harm?

This article was published by the disability rights group Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet on October 28.

Taylor Hyatt

By Taylor Hyatt 
Policy Analyst & Outreach Coordinator,
Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet

After the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Belgian wheelchair sprinter Marieke Vervoort made two startling announcements. First, she was retiring; the Rio Paralympics would be her last sporting event. Second, she was considering euthanasia due to the progression of her neuromuscular condition.

Ms. Vervoort was an accomplished athlete. She won the gold medal in the 100-metre, and silver in the 200-metre sprints at the 2012 London Games, as well as the silver medal in the 400m and bronze in the 100m in Rio. Until that point, sport had given her “a reason to keep living.” Sadly, Ms. Vervoort has followed through with her plan; according to a statement posted on the website of her hometown of Diest, she was euthanized on October 22.

Since her desire to die became public knowledge, Ms. Vervoort made many public statements in favour of euthanasia. She told CNN that she “regained control” of her life when she was approved for the procedure in 2008. She considered euthanasia to be “going to sleep … something peaceful” and a way out of unbearable suffering. Ms. Vervoort enjoyed the feeling of “rest” that her “papers” gave her, and was relieved that she did not have to end her life in a more traditional, painful way.

Ms. Vervoort lived with severe pain and a lack of sleep because of her disability. She did not have support to manage these aspects of her condition. This raises questions, such as:

• What palliative care measures did Ms. Vervoort receive to help manage her changing condition? We already know that palliative care is often unavailable and underfunded. As well, most doctors don’t know about advanced pain management techniques.
• Was she supported by a peer counselor as she grappled with the drastic changes associated with retirement and a progressive condition? The “better dead than disabled” message was probably harder to counter because her identity had been tied to sports for so long. After devoting so much time to her career, the question “Who is Marieke Vervoort, if not an athlete?” would prove difficult to answer. However, like all of us, Ms. Vervoort’s worth is not tied to her supposed usefulness in a particular domain. Human beings are not cartons of milk – they do not have a “best before” date! Nor would retirement take away from her accomplishments.
• Did anyone one match her interest in death with encouragement to live, or present her with other options?
• If Vervoort was immersed in pro-suicide messages, did she eventually feel like she had no choice but to act on them?

Ms. Vervoort made her suicide a public matter. She used her influence to convince others that ending one’s life is an acceptable response to difficult circumstances. I imagine a young admirer of Ms. Vervoort hearing her say that death is both a valid and accessible way to cope with distress, and it breaks my heart. I’ve never been particularly interested in sports, but I have been let down by a famous person I looked up to.

Steven Fletcher and Taylor Hyatt

By high school, politics – and the underlying ethical debates – had become my passion. A teacher noticed my growing interest and pointed out that MP Steven Fletcher, a disabled man, served in the House of Commons. Mr. Fletcher and I eventually met – not on a class tour of Parliament, as I had initially hoped, but on opposite sides of the euthanasia debate in the Supreme Court. Thankfully, I was well into my university studies at that time. Although I was disappointed, I was well aware of the risks of putting famous people on pedestals.

Public figures are human and fallible, and sometimes don’t live up to our expectations. On the other hand, these same figures must remember that many people, especially youth, look to them as examples. Combined with the lack of role models for disabled people to identify with, and the effects of suicide contagion, one woman’s untimely death could have a disturbing ripple effect.

May Marieke Vervoort rest in peace. I hope all who failed her by allowing her wish for death to go unchallenged have a change of heart. If not, more young fans could be motivated to follow in her footsteps, and more lives could be lost.

Disability advocate: Abandoned, neglected and brokenhearted after Canadian Assisted Death decision

Right Honourable Justin Trudeau

Prime Minister of Canada

November 17 2015

“Abandoned, Neglected, brokenhearted I am left crying myself to sleep” - What the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case has meant to me and many other Canadians.”

Dear Prime Minister

When I was a child my family placed me in a “home” for kids like me – I had disabilities because of cerebral palsy. Over the course of my six years stay I felt totally abandoned by my family. One question would often fill my thoughts, “does anyone really care?” In the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Carter, decriminalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, I feel that same abandonment and again the question circles my mind after all these years – “does anyone really care?”

I have been abandoned by several key sectors of society -  among these are, the Canadian Supreme Court, the Canadian Government, Canadian Law, the Canadian Medical Association, the Church in Canada and the Canadian Media.

You may ask why a sense of abandonment and this would be my answer. These sectors were my life supports on which, I knew as a Canadian living with disabilities, I could depend upon to look after me, uphold my rights, to life, to support, care and protection. Now I fear that my "life supports" have been "turned off."

Now with the Supreme Court decision in Carter, I have lost my confidence in these institutions to protect me. I was told recently, “Steven you should not go to the doctor alone – make sure you have someone to go with you.” So what am I left to do – who will hold my hand? The sense of abandonment, my sense of grief and disappointment is so palpable it is like a yoke on my shoulders. Where do I go now, to whom do I speak?

I want to live even though some people may not find my life worth living. I am grateful to all of the key sectors that I mentioned for the life I have had so far. But when the law allows physicians to kill patients and those with consciences are forced to kill or pressured out of medicine. When people who want to kill themselves are exulted in the media to the point where we change the law and the voice of those of us who wish to live is disregarded and silenced – what am I to think?

Over the last 25 years, I have spoken about three key issues facing people with disabilities, equality, value and acceptance. I have tried to communicate to all Canadians that these three things must be protected under Canadian law to keep us all safe. People like me have always known that we were just tolerated, not really accepted, had no value and no equality in the eyes of many Canadians. Society built us ramps to buildings but not to Canadian hearts.

The Supreme Court judgement, added to the betrayal and neutrality of key sectors of society that has reinforced the concept of out of sight, out of mind,  and now out of the way!

That is why I feel so deeply abandoned because the Carter decision proves I have no equality no value or acceptance. If my choice to live can be circumvented, in my best interests of course - where is my autonomy? Who gave anyone the right to take away my autonomy?Choices are made for me every day. Where I may live, how much money I receive and now finally, with these changes, when I will die.

They will provide various reasons, such as economics, dependency, pain and suffering or quality of life and then they will decide. Society will decide for me, based on what it thinks not what I think. After all Canadian society knows what is best for me – who would want to live like Steven anyway. I shout but no one wants to hear. The Carter ruling establishes two types of Canadians, those upon whom we confer equality, value and acceptance and those, like me, to whom they will be withheld.

There is great talk about being more inclusive, a kinder and gentler Canada – is that just rhetoric – or does that really include the elderly, disabled the marginalized? Or have we become so cold that we will no longer provide the essentials of human life, the supports needed like health care and financial aid to those who require such assistance. I feel as though I need to apologize for being born with a disability, as though somehow it is my fault.

Someone recently said that because the government is our provider the key sectors of society do not want to look after us anymore. Why give him healthcare? Why provide for or assist him we certainly do not want to extend his future? Is this because I am different, because I need a hand, a lift up?

What we are about to do, allowing physicians to kill patients or helping them to commit suicide, is so dangerous, so horrific, so detrimental to Canadian values.

It is said that how a nation treats its most vulnerable is the measure of that nation. Please speak up for my right to live. Our future as Canadians must include the vulnerable and marginalized. As a man living with disabilities I have no voice, and unless I want to kill myself I am closed out of Canadian media. Please ensure that all Canadians have a future – protect us from those doctors who will kill us, protect us from the media which asks you who would want to live like them? Defend us from the law which has been turned upside down and from government which threatens refusal to protect our lives.

Whatever happened to Canada the good? I am on a ledge right now will Canada pull me back or push me off?

Forever committed to making a stronger and more inclusive Canada and an advocate for the marginalized.

Yours sincerely,

Steven Passmore

404- 165 Queen Street South

Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4R3

(905) 529-9689

Previous articles by Steve Passmore:

• Supreme court is wrong on assisted suicide.
• Euthanasia undermines protections in law for me.
• People with disabilities are not disposable.
• I am concerned about my safety if euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal in Canada.

Harvey Chochinov, Steven Fletcher, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Harvey Chochinov

The National Post has published an insightful article by Dr Harvey Chochinov, concerning Steven Fletcher, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Chochinov, who is Canada's Research Chair in Palliative Care begins the article by stating how much he admires Steven Fletcher. He continues by offering an explanation of why the leaders of the disability community oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Chochinov states: 

According to a recent IPSOS Reid poll, nearly 70 per cent of Canadians support the availability of death hastening alternatives for people living with significant disabilities that might impair their quality of life. In other words, Canadians find it inconceivable to imagine themselves confined to a body that even remotely approximates the one Fletcher now permanently resides in. While the majority of Canadians admire him, at some level I suspect they are afraid of the abject vulnerably his life proves is possible within the repertoire of human experience. This fear is so deeply seated that they imagine themselves preferring death. For anyone wondering why physician-hastened death makes disabled people feel vulnerable, wonder no more.

Chochinov continues the article by comparing the personal experience of most people with significant disabilities to that of Fletcher:

Human beings are not good at predicting how they will react in circumstances that have yet to unfold. While Fletcher argues that death should sometimes trump disability, studies of people who become disabled due to spinal injuries, head trauma or strokes, offer a strikingly different perspective. Just under 10 per cent of these patients become suicidal and the majority relinquish their wish to die within a year or two. In his biography, What Do You Do If You Don’t Die?, Fletcher recounts suicidal thoughts that lingered long after his catastrophic accident. He says that had doctor-assisted suicide been an option after his 1996 car accident, he would have considered signing up and checking out. Thankfully it was not. His recovery took determination and strength, but such is the stuff that Steven Fletcher is made of. It also took the support of family and friends, the unwavering commitment of medical professionals and it took time.

Chochinov then explains how legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will change medicine:

Those of us working in healthcare understand that life-altering illness, trauma or anticipation of death can sometimes sap will to live. In those instances, health-care providers are called upon to commit time; time to manage distress, provide unwavering support and to assuage fear that patients might be abandoned to their hopelessness and despair. That is the essence of how medicine has traditionally responded to suffering. Stopping time by way of arranging the patient’s death has never been part of that response. In light of the decision by the Supreme Court, we must now contemplate Canada’s future euthanologists. ...

Chochinov continued by recounting his responses to Fletcher at a recent debate in Ottawa:

Fletcher said he did not want to die drowning in his phlegm and in pain. I assured him, on behalf of Canada’s palliative care community, that we would not let that happen. He said that he did not want to be reliant on machines to keep him alive. I told him that competent Canadians, under our current laws, are entitled to refuse or discontinue treatment, including life-sustaining measures. He described autonomy as a core Canadian value. I reminded him that autonomy has its limits, particularly when it causes others to feel more vulnerable and implicates the physician’s role in response to suffering.

Chochinov concludes by quoting from that same recent debate with Fletcher:

Why I’m afraid of Steven Fletcher’s assisted-suicide bill

This article was published in the Toronto Star on October 26, 2014.

Heidi Janz

By: Heidi Janz

Like many Canadians with disabilities, I have been following the renewed national debate on legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia with growing fear and trepidation.

I am at the point where, to put it bluntly, I am sick and tired of hearing about how TABS (temporarily able-bodied people) and former TABS want the “right” to die, lest they have to live with some of the limitations that I do. The (not so) implicit message is: People with disabilities have crappy lives, therefore, they should want to die.

It’s true that I have some significant advantages that many disabled people don’t: I have a PhD; I live in my own home, and I direct my own care. It’s also true that I live with some limitations that many TABS would deem intolerable — namely, I’m bladder incontinent and eat via a g-tube.

But my dignity/worth as a human being is neither defined by my advantages, nor diminished by my limitations. Rather, as a human being, my life has intrinsic dignity and worth. It is when my life is devalued by society as a “fate worse than death” that I am robbed of my rightful human dignity.

Indeed, like most people born with disabilities, I have had a lifetime of encountering temporarily able-bodied people who automatically assume that the fact that I need other people to assist me with personal care means that I have neither personal dignity nor quality of life. In latter years, I have developed a swallowing disorder that has made it necessary for me to receive part of my daily nutrition via a g-tube. This further lowers my perceived quality of life in the eyes of many people.

Sadly, this includes medical practitioners, as they are not immune to the same able-ist biases which afflict the general public. Consequently, I already live with the fear that, the next time I’m admitted to ICU in severe respiratory distress, a physician could read my medical history, see my feeding-tube, conclude that I have a poor quality of life already, and therefore deem further treatment as “futile.”

The legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide would inevitably, exponentially increase my social vulnerability, along with the social vulnerability of every single disabled and elderly Canadian, thus putting our lives in real and present danger.

People with disabilities feel threatened by moves to legalize euthanasia

This article was written by Audrey Cole and published in the Calgary Herald on July 22 under the title: Living through war made us value life more.

Audrey Cole

I wonder why discussion of end of life options comes mostly from people younger than I am.

Recently, I was on a panel at a meeting of Liberal senators. Their open caucus initiative reaches beyond politics and invites other Canadians to share information and discussion on topics of national importance — an admirable endeavour.

The topic was end of life care choices. The first speaker was the MP whose private member’s bills in the Commons would legalize doctor-assisted dying in Canada. Three of us spoke from personal knowledge of people who have disabilities; another from the perspective of dying with dignity; another about palliative care. Personally, I believe that palliative care should not be considered an option, but as good medical practice. That it is not available to all who need it, is to our collective shame.

After almost 50 years of voluntary effort in the disability community, it is not unusual for me to be the oldest person in a room. On this occasion, most of the others were also seniors. Yet, with mandatory retirement at 75 for senators, there was still more than a decade between our ages. By the birth date of the eldest of Canada’s senators, I had completed my first year in high school.

“With our aging population, the numbers in need of end of life options will only increase,” said the invitation. I was struck by this implied link between the demand for options and aging. I had never considered needing end of life options. I grew up believing life was a precious gift that we should respect as we lived it fully but carefully until, at some time in the future (hopefully far distant), we would die. It is relatively recently that we have been hearing about options in the dying process to which many Canadians believe we are, or should be, entitled.

Conversations about how people with disabilities have died are not unknown in the disability movement. We can tell horrific real-life stories that are unbelievable to citizens unfamiliar with the realities of living with a disability in a society that tends to see such people as “other” or “them” rather than ”us.”

People with disabilities feel threatened by moves to legalize killing by the state of those who request it. They know what it is to be unwanted in an uncaring society and they know that the steps that would further threaten their lives and social image are much smaller and easier to take than most would care to admit or believe.

Euthanasia: Death is not preferable to living with a significant disability.

Norman Kunc

I'm a non-religious man with cerebral palsy. I oppose legalizing euthanasia because i've seen far too many unrequested do-not-resuscitate orders placed on my disabled friends and colleagues. This occurs because many doctors, like most of society, believe that death is preferable to living with a significant disability.

Legalizing euthanasia doesn't give people the right to die; it gives people the right to request to die.

The doctor, not the patient, gets the power to decide. Legalizing Euthanasia adds significant legitimacy to the practice of placing unrequested DNRs on disabled people.

Privileged non-disabled people are trying to legalize euthanasia so they can gain the right to die. Many marginalized devalued disabled people are opposing legalizing euthanasia because we want the right to be safe in hospitals.

Norman Kunc - New Westminster BC

Previous posts from Norman Kunc:

● Youtube Video by Norman Kunc: Euthanasia at the Water Cooler.

A second complaint against Belgium euthanasia doctor.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week a 20 year-old Belgian woman submitted a formal complaint against Belgian euthanasia guru, Dr Wim Distelmans. The woman, known as Margot, has submitted a complaint stating that her depressed mother died by euthanasia without first receiving treatment for depression.

De Standard news reported Margot as stating:

"how could someone who has not even received treatment for depression, get euthanasia?"

Distelmans reponded:

"It's very frustrating for me, but I can not respond to these kind of stories in the press. 

I can not respond, because of privacy laws and it would violate my professional duties."

The article reported that this euthanasia death was approved by the Belgium Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission. The article omitted that Distelmans chairs the Commission.

Godelieva De Troyer

Margot's complaint follows a complaint last February by Professor Tom Mortier concerning the euthanasia death of his mother, Godelieva De Troyer. In his complaint Mortier stated:

Distelmans did not have the expertise to evaluate whether Godelieva De Troyer, was ready for euthanasia. Distelmans is an oncologist, not a psychiatrist and was not even De Troyer's doctor beforehand. She was physically healthy and not suffering from physical pain, and she had spoken with psychiatrists who thought that her emotional distress was treatable. In fact, she was taking medication at the time, which can cause suicidal ideation - so clearly a treatment plan was in place and it may have been causing serious side-effects. Distelmans, it seems, did not take that into account.

Similar to Belgium, the Netherlands is also incrementally extending euthanasia to more conditions.

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is not safe.

This letter was submitted to the Globe and Mail, but not printed, in response to an article that was written by Jeffrey Simpson.

Oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Sign the Declaration of Hope.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I would like to thank Jeffrey Simpson for his comments on assisted death, but his inaccurate analysis actually shows why assisted suicide should not be legalized.

Canada has debated assisted death on many occasions with the most recent vote in parliament occurring in April 2010 when assisted death was defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. That was a pretty strong consensus, even if Simpson was not pleased with its result.

One reason the bill in 2010 was overwhelmingly defeated was that the language of the bill was imprecise and permissive. When Simpson refers to the recent bill in Quebec he stated that it contained appropriate safeguards, and yet the language of the Quebec bill was also imprecise and permissive.

The Quebec euthanasia bill and Bill C-384 would have allowed euthanasia for psychological pain such as chronic depression or mental illness, which are treatable conditions, and these bills were not limited to terminally ill people.

When examining Fletcher’s euthanasia bills we see the same language being used except that Fletcher is not imprecise but rather intentional. The language of Fletcher’s bills specifically focus on assisted death for people with disabilities and once again he specifically allows assisted death for psychological conditions. Fletcher’s bills are also not limited to terminal illness.

Simpson states that there is no consensus among medical professionals. A Canadian Medical Association poll in 2013 found that only 16% of its members were willing to participate in assisted death and a 2010 survey of Canadian palliative care physicians  found that 88% were opposed to assisted death. A consensus appears to exist.

Simpson referred to the jurisdictions where assisted death is legal and stated that it represents a very small percentage of the deaths. The number of assisted deaths in the Netherlands doubled in the past 6 years, with 23% of the assisted deaths being unreported while assisted death for psychiatric reasons tripled last year alone.

This year Belgium extended euthanasia to children and in the Netherlands the Groningen Protocol allows assisted death for children born with disabilities.

In response to the Fletcher bills, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) stated that we welcomed an open debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Ignoring the facts is at our own peril. 

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is not safe.

Euthanasia undermines protection in law for me.

By Steven Passmore - The Hamilton Spectator, April 23, 2014.

Steve Passmore met with
Steven Fletcher in 2009.

After significant reflection concerning Steven Fletcher’s response to my letter about his euthanasia bills, I find it interesting that he stated that my concerns about his motives are ridiculous.

When I was younger I had several very painful surgeries. If someone had asked me, while I was in severe pain, if I wanted to die, I would have said Yes. When I am at a low point in my life, I do not want someone questioning me about whether I should live.

Fletcher’s euthanasia bills undermine protections in law for me.

Fletcher states that his bills will “empower competent adults to make decisions for themselves based on their own values and ethics.”

His bills actually empower physicians and the state to kill people by euthanasia.

People with disabilities, people with Alzheimer’s/Dementia, people with cognitive disabilities, are all at risk by Fletcher’s bills. Fletcher speaks about choice, but these people are dependent on others to make decision for them.

In Belgium a recent study found that people withAlzheimer’s/Dementia or in coma were often being killed without request, and yet the Belgium law has the same – supposed safeguards – as Fletcher’s bills.

In Switzerland the assisted death groups haveestablished themselves in nursing homes. Once assisted death becomes a legal option it also becomes an ever present suggestion.

Legalizing euthanasia does not create greater rights for people with disabilities and the frail elderly but rather it will often lead to the death of vulnerable people.

Steven Passmore

Hamilton Ontario

Links to similar articles: 

- People with disabilities don't want your pity and we don't want your death. 

- People with disabilities are not disposable. 

- People with disabilities protest Bill C 384.

People with disabilities don't want your pity and we don't want euthanasia.

The following letter was published by the Hamilton Spectator on April 15, 2014.

Sign the Declaration of Hope to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Steve Passmore protesting
euthanasia bill in 2009.

By Steve Passmore

I was born with cerebral palsy and I have lived all of my life with pain. I now have scoliosis which affects my mobility and gives me further pain. My prognosis is living with a wheelchair.

Steven Fletcher MP has introduced euthanasia bills with language that specifically focuses on people with disabilities because his bills are about him dying by euthanasia.

Fletcher is saying that he does not value his life, but I value my life and the lives of others with disabilities. His “right to die” ends at the point where it affects other people. Don’t take me down with your death wish.

As a member of parliament, Fletcher has the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities, to work towards improving social supports and living opportunities, but his euthanasia bills say that our lives are not worth living.

People with disabilities are at risk from euthanasia because they are often dependent on others who legally have the right to make decisions for them. Any legislation that lessens protections in law for people with disabilities is very concerning.

I have overcome many physical and social barriers in my life, I am busy wanting to live, but Fletcher’s bill directly affects my right to live.

People with disabilities, who live with a positive mind-set, show society how to overcome challenges. We see these challenges as opportunities for personal growth.

Fletcher wants your pity. People with disabilities don’t want your pity and we don’t want your death.

The concept of euthanasia creates great fear for me. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide abandons me as a person. That society would rather help me die with dignity, than help me live with dignity.

We will fight for the right of people with disabilities to live with equality, value and acceptance.

Steven Passmore
Hamilton Ontario

Links to similar articles:
People with disabilities are not disposable.
People with disabilities protest Bill C 384.

Letter to the editor: No to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This letter was published today in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Sign the Declaration of Hope to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges its supporters to write letters to local and national news outlets.

Assisted Suicide debate Stoked. 

Having cared for a child with special needs, I have great difficulty accepting any whiff of contemplation that we can choose to end a life we consider not worth living (MP fights for assisted suicide, March 27) 

The joy and peace I experienced through caring for my son, with all his physical challenges, was enforced by the big smile he greeted each day with in spite of his pain and discomfort. 

If the anguish of caregivers is the litmus test for legalizing assisted suicide, I reject this repugnant precept. 

I would rather we put our resources into home care, hospice and palliative care than ask doctors, bound by oaths to preserve life, to end a life. 

A political system with a history of residential schools based on forced "Europeanizing" of the indigenous people hardly garners confidence when deciding who deserves to live. 

Recommending Canada legalize assisted suicide because of high-profile cases of people seeking this option due to degenerative health conditions is a reaction stemming from pain rather than a reasoned response on how to make the lives of such patients comfortable. 

I don't have a definitive answer except to plead for reason, sanctity of life and justice to prevail. 

Shahina Siddiqui Winnipeg Manitoba

Link to the article: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition welcomes an open debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Wesley Smith comments on Canadian euthanasia bill.

Steven Fletcher MP has introduced a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Wesley Smith wrote the following commentary about the bill.

Wesley Smith

Wesley Smith - March 29, 2014 (Link to the original article)

No more justifications that assisted suicide is about the “terminally ill for whom nothing can be done to alleviate suffering.” That patently isn’t true. Legislative proposals/laws that limit doctor-prescribed death to the terminally ill never have the “nothing can be done to alleviate suffering” part.

Thus, these restrictions are best seen for what they are–mere political expediencies deemed necessary by death ideologues to get the ball rolling. For that matter, so are requirements mandating that the patient actually take their own lives. Active euthanasia is the actual destination and always has been.

Here’s another example of the broad death license that the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement seeks: Legislation has been introduced in Canada’s Parliament to legalize assisted suicide, and once again the “strict guidelines” are broad enough to drive a hearse through. From, “The Right to Die Well,” by the bill’s author, Steven Fletcher:

Having been diagnosed by a physician with an illness, a disease or a disability (including disability arising from traumatic injury) that causes intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person, or; 

Being in a state of weakening capacity with no chance of improvementand being of sound mind and capable of fully understanding the information provided to him or her under other sections of the law.

Note, this isn’t the same thing as saying there is no way to alleviate “pain” since the suffering can be psychological. Also, that including the phrase, ”acceptable to that person,” would mean that there would be no objective way to measure or judge any of this.

Besides, any suicidal person thinks there is no way to alleviate their suffering. Should this bill become law, it won’t be long before it extends to mental illness–which, after all can cause far more suffering than a physical malady. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.

Palliative care Motion to be debated in Canadian parliament on Tuesday April 1, 2014.

On Thursday, March 27, Steven Fletcher MP (CPC) introduced private members bills to legalize euthanasia in Canada.

Charlie Angus

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Motion 456, that has been sponsored by Charlie Angus MP (NDP), will receive its first hour of debate in the Parliament of Canada. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) wants its supporters to contact their Member of Parliament to ask them to support M 456. 
Link to the Member of Parliament contact information.

Email Mr Angus MP (NDP) and tell him that you support M-456. Contact Mr Angus at: charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca.

EPC also supports the recent three year commitment by the Canada's Minister of Health to provide $3 million dollars per year funding to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to train Canadian medical care-givers to provide excellent palliative care for their patients. Link to the article.

Please contact Canada's Minister of Health, Hon Rona Ambrose and thank her for making a three year commitment to the Pallium Foundation of Canada. Link.

The text of Motion 456.

M-456 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories on a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that: (a) takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis people; and (c) has the goal of (i) ensuring all Canadians have access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care, (ii) providing more support for caregivers, (iii) improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada, (iv) encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.

M-456 — M. Angus (Timmins—Baie James) — Que, de l’avis de la Chambre, le gouvernement devrait adopter une stratégie pancanadienne de soins palliatifs et de fin de vie en travaillant avec les provinces et les territoires diversité géographique, régionale et culturelle des régions urbaines et rurales au Canada; b) respecte les besoins culturels, spirituels et familiaux des Premières Nations, Inuits et Métis du Canada; c) vise à faire en sorte que (i) tous les Canadiens aient accès à des soins palliatifs et de fin de vie de première qualité à domicile et en établissement, (ii) davantage de soutien soit aà l’élaboration d’un modèle souple et intégré de soins palliatifs qui : a) tient compte de la pporté aux aidants, (iii) la qualité et la cohérence des soins palliatifs et de fin de vie à domicile et en établissement au Canada soient améliorés, (iv) les Canadiens soient encouragés à discuter de soins de fin de vie et de leur planification.

Link to similar articles:

● Canadian government is committed to increasing palliative care training.
● Euthanasia: End of life care hinges on recognizing and treating pain.
● Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care offers great hope to Canadians.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) welcomes an open debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Steven Fletcher MP intends to introduce two private members bills to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. Based on the order of precedence, Mr. Fletcher's euthanasia bills will not have time to be voted-on in parliament. Mr Fletcher has introduced these bills to create a debate on the issues in Canada.

Sign the Declaration of Hope to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) welcomes an open and forthright debate that provides all information and facts concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide. We are not interested in a one-sided debate. The more facts and information that Canadians have about euthanasia and assisted suicide, the more they oppose it.

In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalized in 2002, studies indicate that as many assisted deaths are done without request and many of the assisted deaths are not reported. In January, Belgian euthanasia doctor, Marc Cosyns admitted that he does not report the euthanasia deaths that he does, even though reporting is a requirement of the euthanasia law. Recently Belgium extended euthanasia to children.

In February 2014, the Netherlands Health Minister stated that there were 42 psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2013 with one of them being a healthy woman who was blind and was "obsessed by cleanliness and could not stand being unable to see spots on her clothes." Recently a former leader of the euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands stated that the Netherlands euthanasia law has derailed.

The fact is that legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is lethal and not safe.

CTV interview with Dr Will Johnston, EPC - BC Chair.

Links to similar articles:

● Euthanasia leader challenges disability rights leader concerning euthanasia.

● The Canadian government is committed to increasing palliative care training.

● The Québec election temporarily kills euthanasia bill.

● Euthanasia Prevention Coalition concerned with the safety, security and equality of every Canadian.

● Council of Canadians with Disabilities feel threatened by Supreme Court of Canada decision to hear assisted suicide case.