Mary Kills People Promotes Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The local radio station, that I listen to, is playing a commercial for Mary Kills People, a six part drama on Global Television in Canada.

People have contacted me wondering what to do about Mary Kills People. We are disgusted by media outlets who insist on promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide without having the honesty and professionalism to equally promote programs that offers an alternative point of view. 

I have personally not wasted my time watching Mary Kills People. I would first urge you to boycott the show. If you have watched the show email your assessment of Mary Kills People to: info@epcc.ca.

I urge all of our supporters to contact the CRTC and demand equal programming. 

Global needs to do a series on people with disabilities who live fulfilling lives, or people with a terminal illness who through effective symptom management and social supports live a fulfilling life until their death, or people who had a terminal illness who survived? We need real stories that provide hope, we need stories that promote caring not killing.

Programs that portray euthanasia as heroic, caring and maybe even daring, are promoting euthanasia. These programs don't show us the real life circumstances of a person who is lonely and afraid of suffering, and feel that they have no real alternative, these programs portray euthanasia as an act done by strong independent people. People we should emulate.

Social change is accomplished through drama that changes our ideas of what constitutes reality, what is a good death, what is murder and what is mercy.

I am also concerned about the contagion effect connected to programs that promote killing. 

This is not the first time Global has aired a program promoting euthanasia. In 2012 Global aired: Taking Mercy, a program that promoted eugenic euthanasia featuring: Robert Latimer, who killed his daughter with cerebral palsy, Annette Corriveau, who had two disabled adult children who she wanted euthanized and pro-euthanasia "ethicist" Arthur Schaefer. At that time, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities responded with strong opposition to portraying the lives of people with significant disabilities as - life unworthy of life.

Recently Liz Carr, a famous British actress who is also a leader of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet UK, produced a successful musical opposing assisted suicide called: Assisted Suicide: The Musical (Comments by Paul Russell). Carr, who is an incredible comedian, proves that opposing assisted suicide can also be entertaining.

You can respond to the propaganda by screening the Euthanasia Deception documentary in your community and by donating to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition production costs for our next video that is now being produced under the working title - Fatal Flaws.

Latimer denied access to Britain

Robert Latimer

Canadian media outlets reported yesterday that Robert Latimer was denied entry into Britain due to visa related issues.

Latimer, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his 12-year-old daughter Tracy, was cleared by the National Parole Board in Canada to speak at an event that was organised by the Oxford Union, a student debating society at Oxford University in Britain.

An article that was written by Tim Cook for the Canadian Press and published in the Globe and Mail under the title: Visa issues keep Robert Latimer from attending British assisted suicide debate. stated:

The organizers of a debate on assisted suicide and mercy killings say visa issues have kept Robert Latimer from attending their event in Britain. 

The Oxford Union, a student debating society that boasts an impressive list of past speakers on its website, had hoped to have the Saskatchewan farmer participate in its assisted dying debate on Thursday. 

Latimer was sentenced to life in prison for the second-degree murder of his disabled daughter Tracy and is on parole. 

The National Parole Board had cleared Latimer to attend the debate subject to his being granted a visa by the British government. 

But Oxford Union president John Lee said Latimer contacted the group on the weekend to say he wouldn't be able to make the trip. 

"He applied for the wrong visa or something," Lee said. "It was really technical ... but he essentially applied for the wrong visa, I think. 

"He attempted to come without a visa and I think the Canadian government or someone close to him advised him he's not going to get in without a visa," Lee added, before asking that further questions be submitted by email. 

Lee didn't respond further electronically. 

The British High Commission in Canada wouldn't verify Lee's information, saying it does not talk about individual cases, and Latimer could not be reached for comment. 

The U.K. Border Agency website notes that Canadians visiting the United Kingdom for less than six months generally don't need a visa, but it does recommend getting one if a traveller has a criminal record. The site says visas are required for Canadians working or volunteering for an employer in the U.K., studying for more than six months or joining family already in the country. 

Tracy Latimer

Tracy was 12 and suffering from cerebral palsy in 1993 when Latimer put her in the cab of his truck and ran a hose from the exhaust pipe through the back window. 

He admitted what he did, but said he wanted to end his daughter's chronic, excruciating pain. He has always said he did nothing wrong. 

Latimer, who is now 59, was convicted in 1994 and a year later the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for 10 years. Jurors in the case had recommended less. 

The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ordered a new trial in 1997 because of errors by the RCMP and prosecutor. 

Latimer's second trial concluded in November 1997 with another second-degree murder conviction. 

The case was again appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled unanimously in January 2001 that Latimer had to serve 10 years in prison. 

Latimer's case has been polarizing in Canada. Some feel he was a caring father who acted out of love for his daughter. Others argue leniency for him would devalue the lives of the disabled.
The Oxford Union says it has hosted numerous high-profile speakers over the years ranging from U.S. president Richard Nixon to the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa. 

When the parole board granted him permission to travel, Latimer said he hoped people attending the panel discussion will realize how "crooked" the Canadian justice system has been in dealing with his case. 

He currently lives in Victoria, but often travels back to his farm in Saskatchewan to be with his family.

Previous articles concerning the Latimer case.

Robert Latimer and the plundered landscape, by Catherine Frazee.
Global TV airs eugenic euthanasia 16 x 9 TV program, by Alex Schadenberg
Robert Latimer is granted full parole, by Alex Schadenberg
Murderer of Tracy Latimer is in the news again, by Stephen Drake
Tracy Latimer, some of the facts, by Alex Schadenberg

This land is my land: Robert Latimer and the plundered landscape

Catherine Frazee wrote the following response to the Taking Mercy - 16 x 9 Global News segment. This was a Global News segment that was aired in March 2012 that attempted to redefine the Latimer case and it featured a woman named Annette Corriveau, who wanted the right to have her adult children with disabilities euthanized. Catherine wrote the following article and published it on her blog.

By Catherine Frazee

Catherine Frazee

A slow pan to a classic frame. A solitary man stands on high ground in evening light, surveying land, sky, and settlement. The soundtrack is subtle but arresting: distant wind, giving way to the soft but urgent tapping of a single atmospheric note, then a persistent throb of airy, fluttering strings. The narrator’s solemn voice begins:

“Robert Latimer. Canadian canola farmer. Father of three. And convicted of second-degree murder.…”

In a mere 14 seconds, with spare and careful strokes, the argument is made. It emerges, irresistibly, from an iconic portrait – a portrait shaded in Canadian idiom, invoking the stoic endurance of a northern people. Farming: the patient work of nature’s stewards. Fatherhood: the primal calling to selfless nurture and protection. Even Canola: the quintessential expression of a nation’s self-reliant, can-do ingenuity.

Only problem is, it’s all bunk. Sometimes a man standing on a bluff is just that — a man standing on a bluff.
For nearly 20 years since Robert Latimer asphyxiated his disabled daughter Tracy in 1993, people with deep understandings of disability have laboured to call that bluff. Yet our efforts in this regard are perpetually undercut by the powerful cultural memes that are so skillfully reproduced in this short segment of the faux-documentary, Taking Mercy.

A meme, according to Malcolm Gladwell, “is an idea that behaves like a virus – that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects”. Memes build and mutate from what is comfortable and familiar. Conjure up a man who works the soil with his hands, a man who stands erect against the wind, a man who holds his rightful place on the rugged plains of the western frontier. Say no more. We know this man, this farmer, this father, this Canadian.

But this man, in this frame, a killer?  Now it is not just one man who stands sullied. Suddenly, the memes that sustain his ‘salt-of-the-earth’ persona are sorely threatened. The stakes are high. The wagons circle. Dip the killer in a redemptive wash of mercy and all is secure again in a small and tidy world. If Tracy’s death was merciful, then the crime of murder, like a mutating meme, becomes an honourable act that more comfortably settles on the shoulders of the noble figure in the landscape.

I’ve had many occasions to voice my outrage at Robert Latimer’s crime, and my horror at the wave of support that rose as his arrest and multiple trials turned through the cycles of front page news. Tracy is 19 years dead. Robert is again a free man, after 7 years in prison, and 2 ½ years on day parole. 

I have no desire to rekindle the flame of this man’s still unrepentant posture that ending Tracy’s life was a blameless act. My quarrel here is not with a Saskatchewan farmer, or an Ontario mother, or any other horribly misguided parent seeking to end the life of a disabled child. My quarrel is with the clichés and platitudes that both foster and condone a very particular homicidal impulse. It is a preposterous notion that Tracy’s life did not conform to the law of nature that Robert somehow epitomizes. The simplistic morality of pitting the “law of nature” against the “law of a nation” – the core assertion of Global’s Taking Mercy – must be exposed for what it is: a fundamentally eugenic rhetoric.

Meme-makers and media moguls, take heed. Return with us to that escarpment. Dress us in Gore-Tex and Lycra, and frame us in the dusky rose glow of evening. Fill our lungs with clean, sharp air and thrill our senses with the chatter of small hungry creatures. Haul the gear that we live by – our wheelchairs, ventilators, feeding pumps – on the same rail that carries the HD gear to capture your beauty shot. Imagine us – find us – alive and fully in our element, and witness the unfolding of a new narrative. Poised on this mighty landscape, all crumpled and decrepit and gorgeous, we dare you to doubt our will for life. 

We cannot have Tracy back. But we can and shall have back this landscape. We can and shall reject the dangerous notion that Robert’s life is natural, and that Tracy’s somehow was not. We can and shall reclaim, for the young prairie woman of 32 who would have been Tracy Latimer, a place among the Maples.

Link - Council of Canadians with Disabilities response to the Taking Mercy Global News segment. 
Link - Alex Schadenberg response to the Taking Mercy Global News segment.

Council of Canadians with Disabilities responds to Taking Mercy Global TV news segment

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) has sent out their recent Chairpersons Update. The Ending of Life Ethics committee that is co-chaired by Rhonda Wiebe and Dean Richert report on the response by CCD to the 16 x 9 Global News episode entitled: "Taking Mercy" and the Rasouli case that CCD is concerned about, a case that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has been granted intervener standing. The "Taking Mercy" episode featured Annette Corriveau, who wants her two adult children with disabilities to be killed by euthanasia. The "Taking Mercy" episode also interviewed and attempted to justify Robert Latimer's killing of his daughter Tracy in 1993.

Ending of Life Ethics 

Corriveau children

In March, Global Television broadcast an episode of 16X9, called “Taking Mercy” which portrayed people with disabilities as having a poor quality of life and included a call for legalized euthanasia. CCD’s Ending of Life Ethics Committee, co-chaired by Rhonda Wiebe and Dean Richert, has been raising awareness about the impact of negative media portrayal on Canadians with disabilities and public policy which governs practices at end of life. CCD has written to Members of Parliament informing them about “Taking Mercy”: and urging them to remain committed to maintaining Canadian law prohibiting assisted suicide. The Ending of Life Ethics Committee oversaw the development of an article for Abilities magazine which encouraged readers to make a complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council whenever they see a media piece which devalues people with disabilities. As Global plans to rebroadcast “Taking Mercy” two additional times, Rhonda Wiebe, Dean Richert, Jim Derksen and Laurie Beachell have been talking to the producers of 16X9, encouraging them to redo the episode to include people with disabilities who will counter the negative messages presented in the first broadcast. 

Rasouli family

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to hear the Rasouli case, which is about who gets to make decisions about withdrawing treatment from a patient who cannot make that decision for him/herself—doctors or the patient’s family. CCD has not intervened in this case but will be monitoring developments both in the media and at the court.

A link to information about the Rasouli case.

A link to information concerning the "Taking Mercy" 16 x 9 Global news episode.

Apologize to the Severely Disabled, DR. PHIL

Dr. Mark Mostert

By Mark Mostert (link to the original)

Dr. Phil owes more than 50 million people in the U.S. with disabilities an apology. Late last week he ran a segment that was unapologetically pro-death masquerading as an informed serious debate. The topic? Whether people with severe disabilities should be killed because they have no quality of life.

Couched in sympathetic close-ups, Dr. Phil made only the most rudimentary attempt at a balanced argument before showing his hand for what it was – that as a powerful member of the media he tacitly supported the idea that euthanasia is an acceptable and even desirable way to dispose of people who are unable to speak or fend for themselves.

On stage for the entire segment was Annette Corriveau, a Canadian mother with two adult children with severe physical and intellectual disabilities. Normal at birth, the siblings’ condition has deteriorated over time due to a rare genetic disease. Janet and Jeffery, now in their 30s, appear to be largely unable to communicate, see, or hear. They survive by being tube fed. They live in an assisted living facility where Annette visits them every other month or so.

Janet & Jeffrey.

Cue a clip of Janet and Jeffery, confined to wheelchairs and seemingly unaware of their surroundings.

The audience were hooked: A “loving” mother tortured by the horrible existence of her severely disabled children and who, at her wits’ end, sees killing them as the only solution. While it wasn’t so crassly stated, Annette wants to put them out of their misery. Killing as a loving parental act.

Things went downhill from there. Enter Geoffrey Fieger, the pro-death Kevorkian lawyer who eloquently argued that death is what the siblings deserve because it would release them from their existential hell on earth.

Right at the end of the segment, Dr. Phil introduced Ruthi, a mother of several children with disabilities, as the counter argument to all the death talk. In tears, Ruthi argued valiantly against what Corriveau and Feiger wanted to do. She was allowed three or four sentences, and that was that.

Ruthi, by the way, had to make her argument seated in the audience. No stage time for her and her views.

The segment was over except for one more thing: Dr. Phil asked the audience if they agreed with Corriveau and Feiger that Janet and Jeffery were better off dead. Almost everyone raised their hands to agree.

The audience response was not surprising seeing that the drumbeat throughout the segment was to end lives, lives most seemed to agree were not worth living.

Better to discard these creatures unable to reciprocate love and affection that cause their mother increasing emotional trouble. That’s why Annette Corriveau wants them dead more than anyone. She was closely followed, apparently, by the audience whose enthusiastic voting for death was little better than a Roman mob entreating the emperor for a thumbs-down death of a wounded gladiator.

Here was the pro-death monster unveiled: Death is better than life; poison or a needle can end all suffering. If you’re not exactly perfect you can’t possibly want to live in that condition, nor should your loved ones be put upon to visit you. Therefore, the put-upon have the right to get rid of you because they know what’s best for you (and for them, of course).

The pro-death bias lives on at the Dr. Phil Show website.

First, three photos from the segment’s guests, all of equal size (Feiger, Janet and Annette, Ruthi), convey the idea that they were each equally part of the segment. Not true.

Second, there are video clips of Corriveau, Dr. Phil, Janet and Jeffery, and Fieger. Ruthi only rated a brief quote right at the bottom of the story report.

At the very least, given his celebrity status, Dr. Phil should air another segment equally biased but this time on the side of human kindness, human dignity, and with the quite universal understanding that it is how we treat the most vulnerable among us that in time defines us as a society.

Until that happens, people with disabilities and their loved ones should steer clear of the show because pro-death apologists in very influential positions are the last thing we need.

Dr. Mark Mostert is the president of Disability Consultants International and is recognized nationally and internationally as an expert on disability issues. He is a consultant for the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.

Dr. Phil: Promoting Killing People with Cognitive Disabilities

This is a re-print from the Not Dead Yet Website.

By Stephen Drake:

Stephen Drake

The first time I ever heard of Dr. Phil McGraw was in the late summer of 2002 when I got a call from one of his producers.

First, she had to explain to me just who "Dr.Phil" was. By now, anyone reading this knows his history with Oprah and his trajectory into his own show, so I don't have to go over that part.

Once the producer got over that part, she got to the point of her call. The show would start airing soon and they were planning and taping the first shows. They planned to do a show on Carol Carr, who, in June of 2002, had walked into the nursing home where her two sons resided in Griffin, Georgia. She went to the room that they shared and shot both men dead. Both men had Huntington's disease. Michael Randy Scott was 42 and Andy Byron Scott was 41.

What they planned for the show, she explained, was to hold a sort of 'mock trial' for Carol Carr. They would have 'experts' debate the pros and cons of treating her shooting of her sons as a murder vs. exonerating her as having performed an act of mercy.

They already had their 'experts' lined up, but didn't say (so far as I can recall) who they were. What she wanted from me was to get one person from Not Dead Yet to show up to be in the audience for the taping - where, they would probably get to ask one question or make one statement.

After getting her office phone number, I told her I'd see what I could do and went to discuss the issue with Diane Coleman.

To make a long story short, we were faced with trying to get someone from the Los Angeles area to commit to go with very little warning. That individual would then be faced with trying to arrange transportation to the show - not an easy thing in the LA area for the chair-users we knew. It seemed like an awful lot of work to ask of someone else - a commitment which would eat up a significant portion of their day - for the possibility they might get to ask one question or make one statement. This in the context of a show that looked rigged to go very much against people with disabilities.

We reached the conclusion that the best thing was to refuse to cooperate with the show.

I called the producer back and explained that we decided not to even try to get someone to the show and started to explain why.  We believed the show was a bad idea, plain and simple. They were going to have some 'experts' on a stage - none of whom knew anything about supports for people with disabilities or how disabled people can have a great quality of life with supports - and discuss whether the killing of Michael and Andy Scott were "real" murders. I explained that there was a nationwide trend for the murders of disabled people to be treated as insignificant, compared to other deadly incidents of domestic violence. Further, it was clear that the pattern didn't result so much from sympathy for the killer as it did from devaluing and objectification of the victims.

I said it was offensive to put the worth of the lives of disabled people on trial as an entertainment exercise.

She disagreed with the characterization. I assured her that we would be willing to issue a national press release as soon as we watched the episode (which I had no doubt would meet our expectations).

In the end, the show never aired - which means, I guess, that they never actually did that show.

Maybe the threat of a press release and negative publicity resulted in the decision not to go with the show. But I suspect that if it was anything I said at the time that actually had an impact it was near the end of the conversation.

I had gone back to the issue that the idea of debating the value of disabled lives for entertainment was offensive and she told me that she didn't think it was. I told her, that as a white male, when black women tell me a certain portrayal of them is offensive I trust and respect their evaluations over the assurances of other white males that there's no problem. After a slight pause, she responded quietly with, "well, I am a black woman and I know what you mean." The call closed with my promise that I'd keep a lookout for the particular show when the Dr. Phil Show started airing. After two months of watching the TV schedule diligently, I gave up and figured they just didn't do it.

Well, that was then - Dr. Phil has been on the air for almost ten years. And he's shown a tendency to jump on headlines and to exploit breaking human interest stories - and the people at the center of them with enthusiasm. You can check out the Wikipedia entry on "Dr. Phil" to see a series of his greatest hits - accusations of unethical conduct, and various other not-so-nice things - most having to do with the good doctor having done something involving the exploitation of a situation or someone's personal trauma to boost his show, his ratings and his 'brand.' This MSNBC news story about accusations of exploiting Britney Spears' very public emotional meltdown(s) back in 2008 is also very informative about the "ethical grounding" of good ol' Dr. Phil.

So I guess it wasn't really all that surprising when Dr. Phil and his staff took notice of the controversy - and attention - garnered by Global News in Canada with its 'Taking Mercy' show which promoted the idea that parents should be able to kill their children who have intellectual disabilities. The show centered around Annette Corriveau, who has two adult children who have a progressive genetic condition called Sanfilippo syndrome. It aired on April 13, 2012.

Since, as usual, the main concern of Dr. Phil and his staff is providing programming that will grab attention, there was no honest exploration of ethical issues when he, in turn, had Annette Corriveau on his show. In addition to Corriveau, he had Geoffrey Fieger - who not only defended Kevorkian, but also helped him pick out and eliminate 'candidates' for assisted suicide based on what he believed Kevorkian could get away with. Fieger has never criticized any homicide labelled a 'mercy killing' that he's been asked to comment on. The third 'guest' was a woman identified only by her first name - 'Ruthi' - who is described as having four birth children and three step children; we're also told that three of her children have 'special needs' and suffer from disorders. She is appalled at the idea of killing people with intellectual disabilities.

The show opens with a brief intro of Corriveau. After that, we're treated to an interview of her conducted by one of the producers while video from the 'Taking Mercy' show runs in the background.

Over the course of the opening (which takes over half of the show segment) we are shown and/or told the following:

• Video shows Corriveau's two children from childhood to recent pictures as adults.
• Aside from the cognitive and physical disabilities developed as a result of the condition, much is made of the changes in their appearance as they got older (implying the 'not normal' appearance is also tragic).
• She institutionalized them both when they were young.
• She visits them every two months, but doesn't touch them, because they don't react to her. We hear nothing about whether or not they react to staff people they see every day.

After that, Dr. Phil does a little back and forth with Corriveau, making mild protests about not knowing what they would want and how it's different from withholding treatment. He also says he wouldn't want to live "like that."

Next he goes to Geoffrey Fieger, who says what she wants is perfectly reasonable and merciful and that the law is stupid. No one who knows anything about Fieger can be surprised by his take on this - not even Dr. Phil - but I suspect he invited Fieger on the show precisely because he knows what Fieger's take will be.

Next he goes to 'Ruthi.' We don't get to see any videos of Ruthi's kids. She might be an articulate advocate in other venues, but she's been outmatched here. Not only does the "I want to kill my kids" mom have the stage, but interruptions by Corriveau and Fieger eat up over half of the little time Ruthi has to voice her objections to what is being promoted that day.

Next - he asks for a show of hands from the audience - how many agree that Corriveau should be able to 'mercifully' kill her kids? It's no surprise that an audience that has sat through a presentation in which Corriveau's honesty, compassion or motives are never questioned - and backed by a leading advocate of anything that gets called 'mercy killing' (Fieger) - about 90% of the audience back Corriveau. By doing so, they've also written off the lives of anyone with a significant cognitive disability. It's a bad day for people with disabilities, but a great day for Dr. Phil - who loves great theater.

There's a feature after every show called "Dr. Phil Uncensored." You can check the link and track down the one for the show "Deadly Consequences" - the obviously scripted interaction between Dr. Phil and his staff is pure bullshit from beginning to end regarding the 'mercy killing' segment. They express surprise over the audience vote and congratulate themselves, saying that "all the arguments were brought to the table" and that "we got both sides out". That's just crap - they're all too smart not to know they loaded the dice and ended up with exactly the show they planned on. They're just counting on audience gullibility.

This is a link to the main story site of "Deadly Consequences."

As another person outraged about this said on Facebook, Dr. Phil really is no different - or better - than  Jerry Springer, who reigned for years as the exploitation circus king. The difference between Dr. Phil and Springer is that Springer never seriously claimed to be 'helping' anyone. Far too many of Dr. Phil's fans think he's some sort of kind professional, when in fact he's just another self-promoting entrepeneur working hard to separate gullible people from their money.

Dr. Phil show advocates for "Mercy Killing" of People with Disabilities.

By Cassy Fiano - April 14, 2012.

This week on the popular Dr. Phil Show, a mother named Annette Corriveau was featured. She’s special because she wants the right to be able to kill her children. (Link to Dr. Phil Show)

That’s right. She is the mother of two severely disabled adult children, and she feels that the moral thing to do would be to kill them by lethal injection, to end their “suffering.” Her children were diagnosed with Sanfilippo syndrome, causing them to lose motor function and be institutionalized. They cannot speak, and they have to be fed through feeding tubes. Any more information on their condition wasn’t made clear – probably because, as Annette admitted, she visits her children only once every two months. The people who actually work with her children every day, and see them on a regular basis, and could therefore give a better idea of what their lives are like, were not interviewed for the show. We had only Annette’s point of view, which is that – according to her – if her children could choose, they would choose suicide.

She admits that she doesn’t know if they are in pain. She doesn’t know if they’re deaf or blind. She doesn’t know if they recognize her or not, and she doesn’t know what actions and activities, if any, are comforting to them. She doesn’t know if they are able to communicate in any way. She says that they’ve never left the facility they’re in over the past twenty years, but she also doesn’t disclose if she’s done anything to try to take her children out on trips – although considering that she visits them only once every two months, my guess would be no.

Yet she feels that, because she is their mother, she should be allowed to end their lives – because she doesn’t think their quality of life is worth living for.

Jack Kevorkian

Also invited on the show? Attorney Geoffrey Fleiger, who defended the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian. As we all know, Dr. Kevorkian performed assisted suicides for his patients, and the argument being made is that this is the same thing: helping people put themselves out of their own misery.

Assisted suicide arguments aside, there is a glaring difference between what Dr. Kevorkian was doing and what Annette Corriveau is advocating: these children wouldn’t be committing suicide. They wouldn’t be calling Dr. Kevorkian themselves. They aren’t consciously making that decision. It is a choice being made for them, by the person who is supposed to love and protect them. No matter how sympathetic you try to make yourself seem, this is murder, plain and simple. Taking someone’s life and calling it “merciful” does not change the fact that you are taking someone’s life.

The most disturbing part of all? Dr. Phil offered a weak rebuttal to her argument, but he still went on calling this an act of mercy to her children. He then polled the audience to see how many of them agreed with this mother.

Almost every single member of the audience did.

The woman crying at the end of that video was the one person speaking out for those children. She was given all of a minute, tops, to make her case for why murdering people with severe disabilities is abhorrent and wrong. And in that minute, she was able to pretty much hit the nail on the head: that you can’t kill your children just because it’s too much work for you to keep them alive.

This isn’t the first time Annette Corriveau has spoken publicly about this issue. She was featured in a documentary, Taking Mercy, along with a father who actually did kill his disabled daughter in the name of “mercy.” (You can watch the video here – it’s about fifteen minutes long.)

Robert Latimer, the other parent in Taking Mercy, murdered his daughter to end her “suffering” by putting her in the cab of his truck and letting her die of carbon monoxide poisoning. The affliction that meant that her life was not worth living? Cerebral palsy.

These two parents want to make it legal to murder your children if, as a parent, you feel that their lives aren’t worth living, because they are supposedly suffering too much. And what makes a life not worth living? Apparently, having a disability.

Tracy Latimer

While you can’t argue that Annette Corriveau’s children are severely disabled, Robert Latimer’s daughter was nowhere near them in terms of disability. You can see her in videos, laughing and smiling. The reason he decided to kill her? She had to have surgery to repair her hip, another surgery in a long line of them, and he felt that her life was too “painful” to live. He says that after she died, he knew she was at peace. And of course, so was he.

What makes these people think they have the right to decide whether their child gets to live or die? Annette Corriveau repeatedly says that you can’t judge her unless you’ve “walked in her moccasins,” but that is a load of nonsense. This has nothing to do with being judgmental, and everything to do with refusing to open the door to euthanasia.

It’s repeatedly said that this should be between the parent and the physician, and no one else, but it isn’t the parent’s choice to make. You don’t get to decide whether someone’s life is worth living or not. You don’t get to decide that it’s better to murder people than let to let them live.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this entire argument – that “mercy killing” should be legalized – is the potential for a deadly slippery slope. If they get their way, then who gets to decide what the marker for quality of life is? Who chooses when life is worth living for someone else? What disabilities deserve a death sentence? Sure, Annette Corriveau’s children are severely disabled. But what about parents who feel that their child with, say, Down syndrome has poor quality of life and doesn’t deserve to live? Multiple sclerosis? Muscular dystrophy? Cerebral palsy?

There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world living with disabilities, and I’m sure they wouldn’t want someone deciding for them that their lives aren’t worth living and that as such, they’ll be murdered. The fact that this issue has been brought to prominence on The Dr. Phil Show and portrayed as a legitimate issue of compassion and mercy is horrifying; even worse is that so many of his viewers apparently feel that killing someone because of a disability is A-OK.

The reality here is that no one gets to play God and decide who lives and who dies, or whose life is worthwhile and whose isn’t. Just because you brought your children into the world doesn’t mean that you have the right to take them out of the world, whether it’s done in the name of mercy or not. Because no matter how you may try to paint the picture, there is absolutely nothing merciful or compassionate about murder.

Dr. Phil show: Woman wants to euthanize her adult children with disabilities.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 17, 2012 Global News 16 x 9 showed an episode entitled: "Taking Mercy" that featured Annette Corriveau, who wants to have her adult children who live with significant disabilities, euthanized. The show also featured Robert Latimer, who was convicted of killing his daughter Tracy in 1993. Tracy had cerebral palsy.

• Link to the Global News Show. 
• Link to my commentary on the Global News show. 
• Link to the EPC response to the Global News "Taking Mercy" segment.
• Link to the response by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities to the Global News - "Taking Mercy" segment.

On  April 13, 2012 the Dr. Phil Show featured Annette Corriveau, who would like to have her adult children with disabilities euthanized and Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer who defended Jack Kevorkian. Link to the Dr. Phil show.

Corriveau children

While intellectuals discuss euthanasia for infants with disabilities, the mainstream media is now promoting euthanasia for adults with disabilities. 

The eugenic philosophy, a philosophy that believes in eliminating people whose lives are deemed to be not worth living or eliminating the imperfect from the genetic pool, has been reborn under the guise of "compassion."

People must have forgotten what occurs when society deems that some lives are not worth living. There are no limits to eugenic attitudes. Once a eugenic philosophy takes hold the question becomes whose lives are worth living and eventually the question will be - is your life worth living.

Eugenics, clothed in compassion creates pressure on the lives of the vulnerable. Those who decide not to die a premature death, or people who resist killing their disabled children or parents will be referred to as selfish. They will be told that they lack compassion or that they are abusing the limiting healthcare resources.

They will be told that they can choose to live, but not at the expense of society.

Am I wrong? Corriveau visits her children, who have been institutionalized since the age of 7 and 8, only once every two months.

When considering the eugenic attitude that is becoming prevalent in our current culture, my response is - Never Again.

The following text is what was posted on the Dr. Phil website: 

Deadly Consequences - Murder or Mercy.

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her severely-disabled children, who are being kept alive only by feeding tubes. What would you do?

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her children, 42-year-old Jeffrey and 43-year-old Janet, who are suffering from the rare, incurable genetic disorder, Sanfilippo Syndrome. “If Janet and Jeffrey were able to make a decision about life, the way it is with them, they would opt for suicide,” Annette tells Global News Canada in the documentary, Taking Mercy.


Annette recalls that the “terrible twos” lasted longer than expected, and by age 4, she realized something wasn’t right with her children: they were losing motor skills and losing the language they had developed. A hospital in London, Ontario, finally handed down the devastating diagnosis. Janet and Jeffrey’s conditions progressively worsened, and at ages 7 and 8, they were institutionalized — and have been ever since.
    
“They have said for years already that they don’t think [Jeffrey] can hear or see — but how do you judge?” Annette asks. “[It’s] the same with brain activity. How do you judge how much [activity is there]?” She compares their conditions to that of a comatose patient. “There’s sometimes brain activity, but how much?” she asks. Annette says she first thought about taking control of her children’s lives when the feeding tubes went in. “If God wanted them to live past adulthood, then the tubes wouldn’t have been needed,” she says. “The tubes are allowing them to exist. Without the tubes, they wouldn’t be here. This is no life.”


Dr. Phil welcomes Annette to the show. “Tell me exactly what you want to do and exactly how you’ve come to the decision,” Dr. Phil says.


"I saw an article in the paper that said that, again, someone had tried to pass the law for euthanasia — assisted suicide — and it was vetoed,” she says. “I got angry and wrote a letter to a newspaper; and the Global TV program read that letter, and they approached me [to do a story].

“After 25 years of watching them just exist, it’s time that somebody did something," she continues. "I didn’t want to be the one to do it, but I’m here,” she adds.


“If you were going to do it, do you now wish you had done it 25 years ago?” Dr. Phil asks Annette.


She says she would have considered doing it 17 years ago, when Jeffrey first had his feeding tube inserted.

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her severely-disabled children, who are being kept alive only by feeding tubes. What would you do? Then, former model, Stephanie Vostry, says she’s fighting to survive chronic Lyme disease, an illness some believe she may be faking. Plus, chronic Lyme disease hits close to home for a "Dr. Phil" staff member.

Mercy or Murder?

Is it your belief that they are consciously suffering pain?” Dr. Phil asks Annette.
“My daughter broke her thumb once. No one knew about it, because she couldn’t voice that,” Annette responds. “So, how do we know if she’s suffering?” She admits that she doesn’t know whether her children are feeling pain. “I hope they’re not, but I don’t know.”

Why does Annette say she only visits her children every 2 months?

See what a typical day is like for Janet and Jeffrey.

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who gained notoriety for his outspoken defense of the late assisted suicide advocate, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, joins the show. “Annette obviously wouldn’t be in this situation but for the advancement of science,” he says. “She’s faced with an unbelievably difficult decision. Her children are being warehoused. Whether or not they’re in physical pain, they’re clearly not existing.” 

Geoffrey draws a comparison between dying of starvation and dying mercifully.

In the previously-recorded documentary, Annette admits, “There have been times when I thought about doing something myself [to end my children’s lives].” To her critics, she says, “Unless you’ve been there, don’t judge.”

Ruthi, mother of seven, including three with special needs, says the idea of euthanizing disabled children is nauseating and the same as putting a gun to their heads. She addresses Annette from the audience. “I’m sorry that those children are the way they are. I’m sorry that my child might be that way some day,” Ruthi says. “I will not euthanize my child because it’s too much trouble for me [to keep them alive].”