Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association proposes to support assisted suicide

This article was published by National Review online on June 24, 2024

By Wesley J Smith

When Dame Cecily Saunders created the modern hospice movement, she adamantly rejected assisted suicide as an acceptable hospice activity. Indeed, when I interviewed Saunders for the original edition of my book Culture of Death, she stated unequivocally that assisted suicide "rejects the equal dignity of my patients."

That is why she designed hospice to engage in active suicide prevention when patients expressed suicidal desires as one of its most important services alongside pain control, social services, chaplaincy, and the like. In other words, as conceived by Saunders, hospices would be assisted-suicide-free zones.

Saunders would be spinning in her grave — she died in the St. Christopher’s Hospice, which she founded — if she read the proposed policy around assisted suicide that has been published by the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). It is both abject and a betrayal of Saunders’s humanitarian vision for the care of dying people. And the statement contains not a hint of the many problems and abuses that have been associated with “medical aid in dying” (MAID), reasons why the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that access to assisted suicide is not a human right.

First, the proposed policy position embraces the word-engineering tactic of calling assisted suicide MAID. I have repeatedly criticized this euphemistic deflection and won’t repeat those thoughts here.

Then, the statement calls participation in suicide a form of palliative care. From the proposed “HPNA Position Statement: Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD):

HPNA acknowledges that some patients with terminal illnesses may seek medical aid in dying (MAiD) as an end-of-life care option where legally available. Although suffering is not a requirement in order to qualify for MAiD in the United States, some patients may utilize this option to relieve their suffering, which is consistent with the ethical principles of palliative nursing care. Suffering at the end of life may be caused by loss of control; death anxiety; feeling like a burden; and refractory physical, social, emotional, spiritual, and existential symptoms. MAiD is consistent with the fundamental ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence.

It is actually the opposite. As Dame Cecily knew so well, the proper compassionate approach to suicidal ideation — whether in terminally ill people or otherwise — is suicide prevention, not participation and facilitation by medical professionals, of all people. Indeed, when I trained as a hospice volunteer in the 1990s, I was strictly instructed to alert the multidisciplinary team if a patient ever indicated a desire for suicide or immediate death.

Here’s the abject part:

HPNA adopts a stance of engaged neutrality regarding whether MAiD should be legally permitted or prohibited.

What in the hell does “engaged neutrality” even mean? But they really aren’t fooling anybody. The long statement is almost all pro, pro, pro. Even its suggested “resources” for further information are one-sided.

The policy urges nurses to participate in assisted suicide absent a moral objection. The only good news here is that the statement respects medical conscience and the right of nonparticipation. (One would hope all palliation and hospice nurses would refuse to be complicit in any patient’s suicide!):

Nursing care for patients considering MAiD (and their families) is crucial to ensure that patients and families are not overtly or inadvertently disenfranchised or stigmatized as they proceed with MAiD and that they experience a safe and comfortable death, free from complications.

“Safe” death “free from complications?” Good grief.

Once lethal injection is allowed legally, and eligibility expands beyond the terminally ill — as will eventually happen if the death agenda keeps marching forward — would the HPNA still suggest that nurses do the deed? Reading this proposed statement, I think it would.

The public is invited to comment on this (from my perspective) planned betrayal of vulnerable patients by July 7, which can be done by hitting the public comment link on this page.

Military reports disturbing conditions in Ontario nursing homes.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have been writing about the tragic COVID-19 nursing home deaths. On April 14 I wrote about COVID-19 Triage guidelines and nursing home deaths and on May 13 I wrote about the New York State policy that may have led to thousands of nursing home resident deaths. 

In Ontario, nursing home residents comprise more than 75% of the COVID-19 deaths.  The Canadian military was called in to provide needed care and support in nursing homes that were strained by the COVID-19 outbreak.

According to a Global news report:

A total of 285 military members were working in Ontario care homes. In Quebec, more than 1,500 soldiers were sent to 25 long-term care homes, with up to 60 at each facility. More than two dozen Canadian soldiers have now tested positive for COVID-19.

This military intervention not only provided care for vulnerable people, it also provided an impartial witness to the care (or lack thereof), that the residents were receiving.

Military member providing care

Military personnel who were caring for nursing home residents released an horrific report of systemic nursing home elder abuse. According to the CBC News Report by Nick Boisvert:

Military service members, who have been providing assistance at the homes since April 28, say they have observed numerous forms of unhygienic and dangerous behaviour. 

The list of allegations includes:

• Repeated use of medical equipment between COVID-19 patients and others who had not tested positive, without it being disinfected.

• Improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by staff and doctors.

• Housing of COVID-19 patients with residents who had not tested positive.

• Staff reusing gloves or not washing hands between resident interactions.

• Staff being aggressive with residents during medical procedures.

• Residents calling for help with no response for up to two hours.

• The presence of insects, including cockroaches and ants.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford

Boisvert reported Ontario Premier Doug Ford stating in his press conference:

"It was so disturbing ... It was the worst report, most heart-wrenching report I have ever read in my entire life"

A Global News report stated:

The soldiers reported witnessing cockroaches, flies, rotten food, as well as residents left in soiled diapers or crying out for help for lengthy periods, the documents allege. At one facility, residents had not been bathed in weeks, they said. 

At a facility in Etobicoke, residents who tested positive for COVID-19 shared rooms with uninfected residents, separated only by a curtain, the documents said. 

It found “major concerns” at Eatonville about care, infection control and narcotics abuse. 

The Orchard Villa home had cockroaches and flies, and residents were “left in beds soiled in diapers.” New staff were not trained adequately, nor was protective gear used properly. 

It said staff were not always sitting residents up before feeding them, and that this may have contributed to the death of a resident who choked after being fed “while suppine.”

All of this and more is occurring in Ontario where we have universal healthcare. Please read the Global news report.

The horrific incidents outlined in the report reveal a culture disrespect and dehumanization towards people needing care. Philosophers like Peter Singer, who teach that people with certain cognitive conditions cease being persons have contributed to this epidemic of disrespect and harm.

This military report confirms the truth of what the community living movement believes, that it is essential for all human beings to have equality and inclusion in society. Institutionalizing people with disabilities or the elderly leads to exclusion and discrimination and eventual abandonment.

The abusive behaviour, mismanagement and dehumanizing conditions is heart breaking and leads me to state that: 

1. Doctors and nurse practitioners, who kill people by euthanasia make decisions based on societal attitudes towards living with physical and psychological needs.
2. The concept of "freedom of choice" does not apply to conditions and attitudes that lead someone to believe that people living with certain conditions are better off dead. Subtle and overt social pressures creates a cultural shift from a "choice to die" to an expectation to die.
3. Some people have asked to die by euthanasia to avoid living in a nursing home. This report may lead to a "clean-up of nursing, it will also lead to more euthanasia deaths.

We need a caring culture: a culture that does not institutionalize the elderly, infirm or people with disabilities, but rather offers compassionate community care. 

Policies that promote home care and enable people to live independently need to be implemented. For people experiencing dementia or Alzheimer's, a community such as Hogeweyk, in the Netherlands provide an excellent example of how this is done.

Institutionalizing and warehousing people results in a culture of abandonment, abuse and often death. 

Let's rethink the concept of nursing homes.

More articles on this topic:

• Report into nursing home deaths will not protect people from suspicious euthanasia deaths (Link).
• New York policy may have led to the deaths of thousands of nursing home residents (Link).
• COVID-19 Triage guidelines and nursing home deaths (Link).
• Pandemic palliative care protocol. Selecting people to die and abusing the purpose of palliative care (Link).
• Euthanasia doctor developed COVID-19 Triage guidelines (Link).

Covid-19 crisis demonstrates the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical.

Euthanasia is not an essential service.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, the author of the book Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, and Theo Boer, a former member of a Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committee (2005 - 14) collaborated to write the article: What Covid-19 has revealed about euthanasia, that was published by Spiked on April 14, 2020.

The authors begin the article by commenting on Covid-19 and healthcare:

There has not been, in living memory, more focus on healthcare, the vital role of doctors, the sacrifices made by nurses, and the wonderful efforts of everyone involved in the sector. Amid the coronavirus crisis, daily heroism, the scale of human loss, and the awful scenes in hospitals underline what is important – and what is not.

Theo Boer

They authors comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in the Netherlands:

It will surprise some that in the Netherlands, the only dedicated clinic providing euthanasia and assisted suicide has closed. Euthanasia Expertise Centre (formerly known as End of Life Clinic) has suspended all euthanasia procedures. The clinic’s website says that existing procedures have been put on hold and new patients are no longer admitted. The centre – which in 2019 alone ended the lives of 898 patients suffering from cancers, psychiatric problems, early on-set dementia, and accumulated age-related complaints – is willing to make an exception only for those expected to die soon and those who may soon lose their capacity for decision-making.

They comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Belgium:

Similarly, in Belgium, Jacqueline Herremans, a member of the federal commission reviewing euthanasia, has noted that there are few resources and even fewer doctors available for euthanasia at the moment: ‘The most important thing right now is that we fight the coronavirus.’

They then comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Canada:

In Canada, authorities are also shutting down services. For a process that requires two different medical assessments and witnesses, the lives involved are not worth the risk. According to the Globe and Mail, two places in Ontario, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2016, have stopped providing medical assistance in dying (MAID) because of the coronavirus pandemic (one has since resumed for existing patients and those whose deaths are imminent).

In Ontario, only Hamilton and Ottawa are known to have decided that euthanasia is not an essential service. 

The authors point out that the Netherlands euthanasia clinic state that euthanasia is not a priority during the Covid-19 crisis. The statement from the euthanasia clinic follows an opposite statement last year where Steven Pleiter, the director of the clinic said:

‘If the situation is unbearable and there is no prospect of improvement, and euthanasia is an option, it would be almost unethical [of a doctor] not to help that person’

The authors say that palliative care institutions have not shut-down during the Covid-19 pandemic.

So what has the Covid-19 pandemic taught us about euthanasia? The authors state:

What the Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated is that the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical. In the Netherlands in the 1980s, assisted dying started out as the ultimate solution to impending horrible deaths. In present times, with a high level of care for the dying available in most countries with good healthcare, assisted dying is not about actual deaths, but about deaths that people fear. The reality is that most people die peaceful deaths. But many fear loss of control and find the prospect of others caring for them terrifying. 

Covid-19 brings the reality of death, the necessity of caring for others and being cared for by others, into our living rooms, making the preciousness of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths real. We see the humanity of the elderly and frail; no longer are they burdens to be dispatched from this world, but victims of horrifying disease that all are invested in fighting.

The authors conclude by stating:

"Perhaps, though, we can remember this time when we made huge sacrifices to preserve every life, no matter how frail and vulnerable. We can remember this time when euthanasia no longer seemed necessary."

Thank you Kevin and Theo. Euthanasia is not an essential service and it is not healthcare.

Moral Challenges exist for nurses around euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

"Nurses are conflicted with assisted deaths"

Barb Pesut

UBC Okanagan nursing professor and Canada Research chair in health, ethics and diversity, Barb Pesut, was interviewed by Daniel Taylor for the Lake Country Calendar.

In her interview Pesut comments on the moral challenges faced by nurses with euthanasia. She states:

The question that haunts me is whether nurses have been sufficiently prepared to make an informed choice about their decision to participate, or not, in MAiD,” 

“There is a prevailing tendency to assume that what we make legal is de facto also right.”

Pesut, who recently published a study on why people choose MAiD, commented on MAiD's effect on nurses.

According to the study, there is a grey area regarding the eligibility criteria for an assisted death. This grey area is really the area of clinical judgment. The courts have recognized that many of the decisions related to the assessment of eligibility for MAiD are medical, not legal decisions. 

This has the potential to lead to quite a bit of variability in determining who is eligible to choose for MAiD and who is not. 

The study found that this was such a different death experience for nurses who were tasked with the patients’ care. 

Some of those who were undergoing MAiD looked relatively well compared to those patients who they normally treated at end-of-life.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has been contacted by nurses who are being pressured to participate in euthanasia. Nurses often have less freedom than doctors to decide what they are willing to do and nurses lack effective conscience protection.

• Nurse feels pressured to participate in euthanasia.

Nurse charged with murder in friends death in California.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kristie Koepplin

An Arizona nurse has pleaded not guilty of murder, in a California court, based on her allegedly injecting her friend with assisted suicide drugs.

According to an article by Kim Bellware published in the Washington Post:

Kristie Jane Koepplin, 58, of Peoria, Ariz., pleaded not guilty in an Orange County, Calif., court Monday, two weeks after she was arrested in Arizona and extradited to face a felony murder charge in the death of 57-year-old Matthew Peter Sokalski. Koepplin was released from custody Monday after posting $1 million bail but can’t leave California or practice nursing as conditions of her release, according to Kimberly Edds, a spokeswoman for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. 

In a brief statement Monday, Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer alleged that Koepplin helped Sokalski die in April 2018 by injecting him with drugs. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department opened an investigation into Sokalski’s death after his body was discovered by staff at a hotel in Mission Viejo, Calif.

Information is not clear in this case but the lawyer for Koepplin claims that she wasn't even at the death. The Orange County Prosecution office stated:

“We only file cases if we can prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

It is interesting that Spitzer told the Washington Post that:

It is beyond disturbing that someone who is trained as a nurse to aid the sick and the dying would twist their duty to willingly end the life of another human being.”

Assisted suicide is legal in California but this case does not fit the criteria of the assisted suicide law.

American Nursing Association's Draft Position Statement on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Is "Misleading and Dangerous"

This article was published by Choice Is An Illusion on April 6, 2019.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

The ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights Advisory Board is seeking public comment on a proposed position statement, "The Nurse's Role When a Patient Requests Aid in Dying."

"Aid in Dying" is a traditional euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia. The first paragraph of the proposed statement is set forth below, followed by my responding submission.

The Nurse’s Role When a Patient Requests Aid in Dying

DRAFT ANA Position Statement

Purpose: The purpose of this position statement is to provide nurses with ethical guidance in response to a patient’s request for aid in dying (AID). This statement offers assistance with understanding nurses’ ethical obligations and responsibilities amidst social and legislative shifts which make this option legal in an increasing number of U.S. jurisdictions.

The entire statement can be viewed here.

My submission:

Lines 1-6 A professional statement should be clear as to its topic. The term, "aid in dying," implies that we're talking about palliative care for a person necessarily near death, which is not the case:

1. The term, "Aid in Dying" is a traditional euphemism for euthanasia. Craig A. Brandt, “Model Aid-in-Dying Act,” Iowa Law Review, 1989 Oct; 75(1): 125-215 (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”) at: (Link). 

2. In the US, Oregon-style death with dignity laws have a six months to live criteria. In practice, this criteria applies to people with years or decades to live. One reason is that predictions of life expectancy can be wrong. See: (Link).  

Another reason is that the six months to live is determined without treatment. Consider, for example, my friend Jeanette Hall talked out of assisted suicide in Oregon 18 years ago: (Link).

In short, by the title alone, the statement is materially misleading.

Lines 7-22 As noted above, "aid in dying" means euthanasia. More importantly, deaths under current Oregon-style acts are not necessarily voluntary.

Perhaps these articles are helpful:

1. Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009, at: (Link).
2. Margaret Dore, "Preventing Abuse and Exploitation: A Personal Shift in Focus", ABA Senior Lawyers Division Newsletter, Vol. 25, No. 4, Winter 2014, at: (Link).

Lines 23-34 With regard to "end-of-life" conversations, I have had at least 10 people talk to me about their wanting to do legal assisted suicide/euthanasia.

• I was trained to always ask them "why?" Get them talking about what's really bothering them, and the answers have been all over the place. One was facing economic pressure, another blamed himself for the death of a friend, another seemed to have learning issues. Most, but not all, changed their minds just by talking about it.
• I have seen families torn apart and traumatized by legal assisted suicide/euthanasia, even when the death does not occur. This also happens with palliative dare/hospice abuse. See: (Link).
• Other people are afraid to go to the doctor or a hospital, they no longer trust the medical profession. 
• Allowing and/or encouraging your members to promote assisted suicide and euthanasia will make the situation worse. I urge you to reject the proposed statement, which is misleading and dangerous.

Thank you.
Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
www.margaretdore.org
www.choiceillusion.org

While Opposition to Nursing Involvement in Assisted Suicide Grows, a Dire Warning from Canada

This article was published by Nancy Valko on April 12, 2019

Nancy Valko

By Nancy Valko

In March, I wrote a blog “Is the American Nurses Association Ready to Drop Opposition to Assisted Suicide?” about the ANA draft position paper changing its stance from opposition to assisted suicide to “The Nurse’s Role When a Patient Requests Aid in Dying”. “Aid in Dying” is the ANA’s new term for assisted suicide. I included a link for public comments on this change that gave a deadline of April 8, 2019.

Although the ANA claims that it ‘is the premier organization representing the interests of the nation’s 4 million registered nurses’, less than ten percent of the nation’s nurses are members of the ANA or other professional organizations” and that number is declining.

I belonged to the ANA decades ago but left when I saw the organization take radical positions without even informing us. Now, no nurse I know belong-unless he or she is in politics, academia or administration.

Even though I regularly get medical and nursing news updates along with constant ads from the ANA, I never see ANA’s proposed new position changes on hot button issues like VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking to hasten death) and assisted suicide until alerted by people in my network. Unfortunately, although some of us wrote public comments opposing nursing involvement in VSED, the ANA approved the change.

This time, the ANA’s draft position on assisted suicide led to an outpouring of criticisms and pleas not to approve the change.

Some Responses to the ANA Draft Recommendations

The Catholic Medical Association issued a statement opposing the ANA’s draft position stating:

“These guidelines compromise not only the patient’s life, but also the conscience rights of nurses everywhere,” said Dr. John Schirger, President of the CMA.”

“A nurse or any health care provider should never abandon a patient or refuse comfort and care to a patient. But AID is not care and is the ultimate abandonment of a patient. Forcing the nurse to facilitate AID makes the nurse complicit in such abandonment,” said Dr. Marie Hilliard, Co-Chair of the CMA’s Ethics Committee.”

The National Association of Catholic Nurses issued their comments on the ANA’s draft such as:

“All the legal system can do is decriminalize AID so that nurses and physicians are not prosecuted for killing patients or helping them to kill themselves. AID is the antithesis of social justice.”

“Nursing is a moral endeavor and much is at stake when nurses breach the moral obligation to first do no harm. Harm is precisely what support of AID does. It harms the patient who is killed, the nurse who must make themselves indifferent to the patient’s suffering and convince themselves that killing is okay, the professional relationship that is built on trust that the nurse will not harm the patient, and society that will come to view nurses as potential accomplices in killing rather than as true healers and providers of authentic compassionate care. As Florence Nightingale is quoted to have said, “The very first requirement in a hospital, is that it should do the sick no harm.”

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) responded in their comments that:

“Social and legislative shifts” do not make a previously immoral act moral. ”

“Aid in dying IS euthanasia. It is the deliberate taking of a life whether it is requested by the patient or not.”

Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism asked “Now Will Nurses Only Prevent Some Suicides?” wrote:

“I hope the membership of the ANA will oppose their leaders’ attempt to accommodate the culture of death. If nurses become “non-judgmental” — e.g., indifferent — to some suicides, the consequent failure to request specialized preventative interventions could become the precipitating omission that sends some suicidal patients into the abyss.”

Over 1000 people signed an online petition opposing the ANA draft position by the April 8, 2019 deadline.

A dire warning from Canada

The Canadian Catholic Nurses joined the National Association of Catholic Nurse in opposing the ANA’s draft position and gave a chilling look at what may be our future if legalized assisted suicide is not stopped:

“Our association formed in 2018 primarily in response to Canadian nurses’ moral distress regarding the nation-wide legalization of medically induced death. Professional associations and licensing bodies across Canada endorsed the legal changes, requiring conscientious objectors to participate in “Medical Assistance in Dying” by “effective referral” to facilitate access at the patient’s request. Faith-based health care facilities are pressured to participate. Nurse practitioners are trained and qualified to prescribe and administer lethal doses of medication to patients that they or others deem eligible for euthanasia.”

Social justice demands that nurses advocate for the protection of life until natural death, not for increased access to induced death. The Canadian experience with assisted suicide and euthanasia provides evidence for your continued resistance to the practice.

Unlike Oregon, Canada has not experienced a growth in palliative care along with the rapid expansion of induced death. Instead, we experience ongoing demands for access to lethal injections for new categories of patients, including “mature minors;” those who write advanced directives; and those whose mental illness is the sole condition underlying their request. We urge the ANA to maintain its courageous opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.” (All emphasis added)”

Legalized assisted suicide is more than a legal, medical or nursing problem. It is a corrupting influence on our society that will destroy the essential protections of truly ethical healthcare for us all.

Belgian euthanasia doctor admits that 1000 people die each year by euthanasia without request.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Belgian 2014 euthanasia protest.

All is not good in the Belgian euthanasia lobby as leaders and advocates argue about organ donation by euthanasia and euthanasia without request.

An article by Simon Demeulemeester and Jeroen de Preter published in The Knack last year concerns comments by euthanasia doctors Marc Cosyns and Wim Distelmans. In response to Ivo Poppe, a nurse who admitted to killing 10 - 20 people, including his mother, Cosyns told the Belgian media that each year there are 1000 assisted deaths without request.

Dr Marc Cosyns

Cosyns only restated the data from a study published in the NEJM (April 19, 2015)  indicating that 1.7%  of all deaths  (more than 1000) in the Flanders region of Belgium, were hastened without explicit request in 2013.

An earlier study found that 1.8% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were hastened without explicit request, in 2007, meaning that the problem has been consistent.

Distelmans, the chair of the Belgian euthanasia commission, attempts to cover-up the data from the study by stating that ending of life without consent occurred before euthanasia became legal and is only done when a physician has "no choice." Distelmans says (google translated):

Doctors in particular who stood with their backs against the wall. Their decision was always well-considered and well-reasoned. If a nurse was involved, it was purely to provide technical assistance, for example by installing an infusion. It is unthinkable that nurses would administer a euthanatic drug on their own.

Distelmans not only tries to covers-up the data from the  NEJM (April 19, 2015) study, he covers-up the data from a study that was published in the CMAJ (May 17, 2010)  indicating that in 2007, nurses participated in 248 euthanasia deaths with 120 of those deaths being done without the explicit consent of the patient. The data also indicated that nurses participated in 12% of the euthanasia deaths with a request from the patient and 45% of the euthanasia deaths that they participated in were done without the request of the patient.

Several years ago Dr Cosyns stated that he does not report the euthanasia deaths that he does because he believes that euthanasia is no different than any other medical or palliative care procedure. The Knack article reports that Cosyns wants the euthanasia law to now be dismantled.

Nurse feels pressured to participate in euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I received a call from a woman, who is a nurse, who told me that she is being pressured into participating in euthanasia (MAiD) even though she opposes it. She asked me what she should do?

I stated that in her province she could freely say NO to participating in euthanasia but if she had a problem, we would help her.

Medical professionals who oppose killing people by lethal injection are being pressured and in some cases are referring patients for euthanasia against their conscience.

If you are a medical professional who is being pressured into participating or referring for euthanasia (MAiD), we urge you to say NO and if necessary to call us for help.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - 1-877-439-3348 - info@epcc.ca

Former Belgian nurse admits to killing 10 - 20 patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Ivo Poppe

Ivo Poppe, a former nurse and Catholic Deacon, is on trial in Bruges Belgium for killing patients in a health clinic in Menin Belgium.

News reports state that he admitted to killing 10 - 20 patients but prosecutors are suggesting that he may have killed up to 50 people.

Poppe was originally arrested in early 2014 after he confided to his psychiatrist that he had "euthanised dozens of people." 

This case is similar to the Wetlaufer case in Canada who was also arrested after telling her psychiatrist that she had killed patients.

According to news reports Poppe allegedly killed his first victim in 1978 and his last alleged victim may have been his own mother who died in 2011.

The guardian reported that investigators examined 65 suspicious deaths and Poppe admitted to killing his mother, his step-father and two uncles.

Belgium legalized a very permissive form of euthanasia in 1992 and yet Poppe continued killing patients until 2011. This case once again proves that legalizing euthanasia does not prevent clandestine euthanasia.

Further to that, euthanasia without explicit consent is somewhat common in Belgium.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (March 19, 2015) titled: Recent Trends in Euthanasia and Other End-of-Life Practices in Belgium found that 1.7% of all deaths in the first 6 months on 2013 were euthanasia without explicit request.

The trial of Ivo Poppe is expected to last two weeks.

• Belgium 2015 euthanasia report. Deaths continue to rise.
• Study: Euthanasia represents 4.6% of all deaths in Belgium.

Ontario nurse suspended for withdrawing life support without permission

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Joanna Flynn

CTV News reported that the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) suspended nurse, Joanna Flynn, for five months after pleading guilty to professional misconduct for withdrawing life-support without permission. She was previously found not guilty of manslaughter.

According to the CTV News report by Adam Ward:

In its ruling, the committee said Flynn “contravened the standards of practice of the profession and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct by discontinuing life support for a client without the required medical authorization and failing to record that medical authorization to discontinue life support had been refused by the responsible physician.” 

In March 2014, Flynn removed Deanna Leblanc from life support at Georgian Bay General Hospital. She did so without the permission of a doctor, which she testified was allowed under the guidelines laid out by the CNO.

It is likely that Flynn also withdrew life-support without proper consent. The CTV News report stated: 

A point of contention in her manslaughter trial was whether she coerced Leblanc’s husband for consent. 

Last June, Ontario nurse, Elizabeth Wettlauffer, was sentenced to 25 years in prison after confessing to killing 8 people.