In the past few weeks I have received many comments from readers and followers of this blog who did not put their name on their comment. The left an Anonymous comment. It is frustrating for me to read these Anonymous comment because many of them are good.

A few years ago, I decided that I would not publish comments from people who would not leave their name with their comment. 

I have received comments from people who were simply attacking others, or attacking me, who remained Anonymous, so I didn't publish the comments.

I also receive many good and instructive comments from people who are also remaining Anonymous. I did not publish those good comments either.

Whether the comment is instructive or attacking, I simply will not publish an Anonymous comment.

Therefore if you want your comment published on this blog, then you must post your name with the comment.

Alex Schadenberg

Montana assisted suicide Bill SB 220, defeated in Senate Judiciary Committee.

Great News:

The Montanans Against Assisted Suicide reported that Montana Senate Bill SB 220, the bill to legalize assisted suicide in Montana was defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 7 to 5. They then voted to table the bill to 2015.

The last two legislative sessions in Montana, have debated a bill to legalize assisted suicide and both times they have defeated the bill.

SB 220 was being promoted by the assisted suicide lobby as a bill to regulate assisted suicide. 

The assisted suicide lobby falsely claim that the Baxter court decision in Montana (2009) legalized assisted suicide without regulations and Bill SB 220 was only designed to regulate assisted suicide. 

The fact is that the Baxter court decision created a "defense of consent" if a doctor was prosecuted for assisted suicide, leaving assisted suicide as a crime and making prosecutions for assisted suicide possible.

SB 220 would have in fact legalized assisted suicide in Montana. The defeat of SB 220 leaves the Montana legislature open to supporting a bill to close the hole in the law created by the Baxter decision.

The Montanans led their opposition to SB 220 with two main points:

1. Assisted Suicide is a recipe for Elder Abuse.2. SB 220 could not protect people because it did not a require a witness at the death.

The Missoulian newspaper reported that:

Backers of Senate Bill 220 said it would establish legal definitions, clarify that doctors performing the procedure have legal immunity and ensure that doctors unwilling to perform the procedure are not required to do so. ... 

Opponents argue that the court decision did not specifically legalize it, and instead just gave doctors a defense if charged with a crime. 

Former state Sen. Jim Shockley, a Victor lawyer, said that heirs can wrongly influence the elderly in their quest to get an earlier inheritance. He said the proposed rules for physician-assisted suicide would not prevent such abuse. 

“Old people can sometimes be talked into it,” Shockley said. “When people get older, they are not quite as sharp.”

Montana Public Radio reported on why people oppose assisted suicide:

“I am 64-years old and I do not want a doctor or a nurse telling me or my wife that we should murder ourselves,” said President of the group Montanans Against Assisted Suicide Bradley Williams. “We have the right to be left alone.” 

The bill does not in any way mandate the use of assisted suicide, it would be voluntary. 

Those against the bill do say it allows for elder abuse—especially when inheritance is involved.  

Also, Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek says doctors are often wrong when predicting things like life expectancy. She brought up a friend with breast cancer that moved to her lungs. Doctors told her she had 6 months to live, “and that was 15 years ago, she still has a medical practice and she’s still playing tennis. If assisted suicide becomes legal in this state there will be Montanans who kill themselves who could have had many quality years.”

Congratulations to everyone who worked to defeat SB 220 in Montana, especially Bradley Williams, from Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, and Margaret Dore. 

Link to the article: Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Ruth Goodman died by suicide, not assisted suicide.

The Victoria Times Colonist has reported on the story of Ruth Goodman (91) who decided to die by suicide.  Goodman had her son, Dean, send her "goodbye" letter to the Globe and Mail with the hope of creating greater support for legalizing assisted suicide.


The article in the Victoria Times Colonist titled: Healthy Vancouver Senior takes own life in bid to change assisted suicide law interviews Grace Pastine, the litigation director for the BC Civil Liberties Association, the group that is steering the Carter case, the case in British Columbia that seeks to legalize assisted suicide and a limited form of euthanasia.

Grace Pastine

Pastine told the Times Colonist:

Ruth Goodman was not terminally ill or assisted in any way, the association would not have a legal position or opinion on her case.

Since Goodman was not aided, encouraged or counseled to commit suicide therefore the law has not been broken.

Goodman died on February 2, 2013; the same day that Ginette Leblanc died of natural causes. Leblanc was the litigant in the Quebec case to strike down Canada's assisted suicide act. Leblanc, who was living with ALS, died of natural causes after experiencing a stroke a few days before her death.

Gloria Taylor, the main litigant in the Carter case in British Columbia, the case that Pastine  is directing, also died of natural causes on October 5, 2012. Taylor, who was living with ALS, died from an infection.

The deaths of Ruth Goodman, Ginette Leblanc and Gloria Taylor did not require a change in the law. Each of these ladies died on their own terms, without experiencing traumatic deaths and without requiring someone else to assist their suicide or actually lethally inject them.

There is no need to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide in Canada.

Belgian woman with anorexia nervosa dies by euthanasia.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This article was written by Michael Cook and published on February 8, 2013 by the bioEdge website under the title: Another speed bump for Belgian Euthanasia.

The case of Ann G, the 44 year old woman with anorexia nervosa dying by euthanasia, is one of a series of cases that have come out of Belgium. Last month, the case of identical twins Marc & Eddy Verbessem created international outrage after they died by euthanasia for reasons of psychological suffering based on their fear of becoming blind.

A few days ago an article was published concerning a Depressed Belgian woman who died by euthanasia.

Michael Cook, February 8, 2013, bioEdge.

The complications of euthanasia keep bubbling away in Belgium. The latest scandal is the euthanasia of a 44-year-old woman because of unbearable mental suffering from anorexia nervosa. Only a handful of these women ask for euthanasia each year and they normally have other psychiatric issues as well. 

As complicated as this may sound, this particular woman’s demise is even more complicated. Ann G. appeared on Terzake, a TV current affairs program, last year accusing her psychiatrist of having had sexual relations with her – and a number of other patients. A few months later she was dead.   

Walter Vandereycken was no ordinary psychiatrist. Apart from being a sexologist, he was an international expert on anorexia (with a textbook published in English). Apparently he had been abusing patients for years; colleagues suspected, but no one blew the whistle. 

The rector of the Catholic University of Leuven (KULeuven), where Dr Vandereycken was a professor, suspended him after the psychiatrist admitted his misdeeds in a TV interview. 

"The facts are dreadful and I don't understand how this didn't come out earlier and how somebody with an international reputation did this. It reminds me of the affair involving the former Bishop of Bruges. Again it's about a public figure who abused his power in a back room,” said Professor Mark Waer. 

According to Terzake, this was not an isolated case. (Link to program, in Dutch.) 

Back to Ann G. 

Ann G. was clearly a complex woman. As early as 2007, she told journalist Kristien Hemmerechts that she wanted to commit suicide. When she appeared on the program, she had apparently already requested euthanasia. Going public gave her a brief respite from "the cancer in her head". However, she was bitterly disappointed that the man who had victimised her was not severely disciplined. Then, overseen by a kindly new psychiatrist, she exercised her option. 

Walter Vandereycken’s case is still under review by the authorities. However, some people have protested that he is being unfairly stigmatised over Ann G.’s death.

A cynic might suggest that Belgian psychiatrists are insensitive to conflicts of interest. One psychiatrist tips a sick woman over the edge; another helps to ensure that she will not be testifying in court against him. Dr Vandereycken is back at work seeing private patients; Ann G. is dead. But Belgians must be getting used to this sort of thing.

Read: Depressed Belgian woman dies by euthanasia.
Read: Depressed patient died by assisted suicide in Oregon.

Sign the Declaration of Hope to oppose the euthanasia and assisted suicide through positive social change. Declaration of Hope

A Vermont doctor asks her Senator to vote against Bill S 77, the Vermont assisted suicide bill.

Below in italics, is the excellent letter of a Bennington County Vermont physician, Carol Salazar, to Senator, Bob Hartwell. 

This letter was printed, with permission  on the True Dignity Vermont site under the title: A physicians letter to an undecided Senator.

Dear Senator Hartwell:

I am sorry to hear that you are undecided about the issue of physician assisted suicide. I hope I have misunderstood this.

Dr Carol Salazar.

I have been a practicing general internist for 30 plus years. I have practiced in NY State, Washington State, Idaho, Massachusetts and now in Vermont. I work extensively with the geriatric population, both in the long term care setting and the outpatient setting and in palliative care. I worked on the lower east side of Manhattan at the height of the AIDS epidemic, when young men and women were dying every day of terrible illnesses that we were just learning about. I recently walked with my 40 year old cousin (with 5 young children) and her family through the last 4-5 months of her fight with metastatic cancer. To the very end, her life was a gift to them and all of us . My husband’s best man died of AIDS not long after our wedding. They each chose to live and die with dignity, not by suicide. Life is not clean and tidy, as we all know. Why do we think the dying process should be – after all it is part of life and one of the only certainties in life.

I studied the Oregon public health records. The data is incomplete. The reason for choosing physician assisted suicide was very rarely for pain and suffering. Much of the media and persuasive arguments in favor of PAS focus on the relief of pain and suffering. Why? …Because we can all agree that relief of pain and suffering at the end of life is a goal, but to consider suicide as a “treatment” is a manipulation of words and the meaning of healing. This is seen clearly because the death cannot be reported as a suicide – therefore, technically, we as physicians are falsifying death certificates. How do we then insist that our children learn to be honest.

What message are we sending to our youth? Suicide rates are increasing in young adults. Every week we read about violent attacks on vulnerable groups. Our youth look to us for what we do, not what we say. Where can a teenager who is being bullied, suffering from an eating disorder or depression, find hope, when her state senators and representatives have stated that it is legal for a person to end their life at the moment of their own choosing. (as long as they have a terminal illness). Every physician knows how inaccurate the estimation of a six month survival can be.

How does a state that vigorously opposes the death penalty make a statement that suicide is a part of the palliative care package. We are fooling ourselves if we do not accept that down the road, as the finances and resources get tighter, the pressure will prevail to extend the “right to suicide” to wider populations. Legalizing physician assisted suicide is a dangerous step for our state, country and world. We are all at our most vulnerable when we suffer, and we all suffer – it is part of our humanity. To say there is no “slippery slope “ is just wrong.

Sincerely, and with hope,
Carol Salazar MD

16% of Canadian doctors would euthanize their patient.

A Canadian Medical Association survey found that 16% of 2125 doctors who completed a survey would be willing to euthanize a patient, if legal, while 44% said that they would refuse requests for euthanasia. 26% of the doctors were unsure how they would respond to requests for euthanasia and 15% of the physicians did not respond.

The Ottawa Citizen published an article written by Sharon Kirkey from Postmedia News that was titled: Only 20 per cent doctors would perform euthanasia, if legal, poll of MDs finds. I guess 16% was 4% to low for the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News.

The poll also found that only 16% of the doctors have been asked for euthanasia in the past 5 years, even though the euthanasia lobby claims that euthanasia is needed to provide Canadians a death with dignity.

It is important to note that the group that most strongly opposes euthanasia are doctors. Palliative care doctors and medical professionals who care for dying people are more opposed to euthanasia than doctors in general.

A recent survey of the 300 members of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians found that the overwhelming majority were OPPOSED to the legalization of euthanasia (88%) or assisted suicide (80%).

* 90% of responding members would not be willing to participate in the act of euthanasia.
* 83% of responding members would not be willing to aid in assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are wrong because they require one person, usually a physician, to be directly and intentionally involved with killing another person.

The Quebec Medical Association (QMA) has taken a position against the legalization of euthanasia. QMA association President, Dr. Ruth Vander Stelt stated:

"The QMA feels that the proposal to put doctors at the centre of the decision would seriously risk eroding the trust between patients, society as a whole and the medical community. “How can a doctor, who is supposed to heal, relieve and comfort, become the person who ends life? Although doctors may refuse, it is unacceptable to put them in a situation that conflicts with the ethical and professional oath they have taken,” 

We must urge that doctors remain healers and carers and not become killers.

For more information go to: Physicians Alliance for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia.

General Medical Council - UK states: Doctors cannot encourage or assist suicide.

Dr. Peter Saunders

By Dr. Peter Saunders - Campaign Director, Care Not Killing Alliance.

Originally published on Peter Saunders blog on February 6, 2013 under the title: Doctors cannot encourage or assist suicide: Official.

Almost a year after its consultation closed, the UK General Medical Council issued on 31 January its guidance about what doctors can and cannot do with patients who consult them about assistance with suicide.

Contrary to the spin suggested by Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and its satellite, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, the only clarification which could remotely be seen as a concession is that doctors who respond to a valid request and solely hand over the medical records required by Dignitas for confirmation of diagnosis are unlikely to face sanction by the GMC. 

Otherwise, the 6-page guidance for the GMC’s pre-hearing investigators ‘considering allegations about a doctor’s involvement in encouraging or assisting suicide’ upholds the law as it stands and sends no signals at all to suggest the profession endorses assistance with suicide. Although of course the GMC recognises its neutral role and states ‘Nothing… should…be taken to imply that the GMC supports or opposes a change in…law’, the guidance helpfully underlines the law and the profession’s position. 

Action concerning a doctor’s fitness to practise is certain when:

• a doctor has been convicted of encouraging or assisting suicide 

and probable when

• a doctor has accepted a caution and/or has been the subject of an adverse determination by another regulatory body for encouraging or assisting suicide• the doctor’s encouragement or assistance depended upon the use of privileges conferred by a licence to practise medicine (such as prescribing) or took place in the context of a doctor-patient relationship• the doctor knew, or should reasonably have known, that their actions would encourage or assist suicide• the doctor acted with intent to encourage or assist suicide

Also likely to lead to action are:

• encouraging a person to commit suicide, for example by suggesting it (whether prompted or unprompted) as a ‘treatment’ option in dealing with the person’s disease or condition• providing practical assistance, for example by helping a person who wishes to commit suicide to travel to the place where they will be assisted to do so• writing reports knowing, or having reasonable suspicion, that the reports will be used to enable the person to obtain encouragement or assistance in committing suicide• providing information or advice about other sources of information about assisted suicide• providing information or advice about methods of committing suicide, and what each method involves from a medical perspective

Guidance follows about ‘realistic prospects’ for proof, and the only ‘Allegations that will not normally give rise to a question of impaired fitness to practise’ because of their lawfulness or their distance from the encouragement or assistance include:

• providing advice or information limited to the doctor’s understanding of the law relating to encouraging or assisting suicide• providing access to a patient’s records where a subject access request has been made in accordance with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 • providing information or evidence in the context of legal proceedings relating to encouraging or assisting suicide

Wisely, the GMC has also released shorter 2-page guidance aimed at patients and those close to them, which summarises the principles and the legal limits detailed for doctors.

Clarifying that ‘respect for a patient’s autonomy cannot justify illegal action’, doctors should ‘limit any advice or information about suicide to an explanation that it is a criminal offence to encourage or assist a person to commit or attempt suicide’.
The position of doctors is now clear to all and does not need changing.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has welcomed the guidance and the Medical Defence Union (MDU) has not revised its previous warning that doctors who provide medical reports for patients seeking assisted suicide abroad could be prosecuted.

Elder abuse - society's hushed secret

The following article was written by Jerry Davich and publishe.d in the Chicago Post-Tribune on February 7, 2013 under the title: Jerry Davich: Elder abuse - society's hushed secret.

I have reprinted this article because the story and the elder abuse statistics in this article create significant problems when assisted suicide is legal. Assisted suicide opens new paths to elder abuse in a society where the scourge of elder abuse is already a significant problem.

We need to protect and care for people. Removing assisted suicide laws, eliminate protections that exist in society for dependent elders and vulnerable people with disabilities. 

We need to Eliminate the abuse, not the elder.

Jerry Davich: Elder abuse - society's hushed secret.

Jerry Davich, Chicago Post-Tribune, February 7, 2013

The frail 65-year-old woman cowered in a corner of a bedroom. Her lips quivered. Her eyes welled with tears.

When Portage police arrived at her home last Sunday night, she was noticeably frightened and intimidated by the other person in the bedroom. It wasn’t a thief. It wasn’t a rapist. It wasn’t even a stranger.

It was her 38-year-old daughter, Lisa Arend, who angrily paced back and forth near her mother when police arrived, according to an incredibly detailed and eye-opening police report.

“As I attempted to speak with Ms. Arend about what was going on, she began yelling various profanities and immediately displayed an uncooperative and aggressive attitude,” wrote the responding police officer in a lengthy narrative.

Arend, who was unmoved by police presence, allegedly blocked the doorway with her legs to prevent her mother from talking alone with an officer in another room of the Portage home. Another officer tried to talk with Arend, but she would have none of it, the report states.

Police were called by a friend of Arend’s who was temporarily staying at the home, along with her husband and the couple’s two children, a 7-year-old and a 7-month-old. While the couple prepared to leave the home during an altercation between Arend and her mother, Arend allegedly told them, “Once you’re gone, I’m gonna kill her ... she’s dead.”

The mother, who I’m not naming to protect her identity, told police her daughter had just returned from a Lake Station bar and that she wanted more money from her. The mother and Arend’s friend told police that Arend was drunk and also high, possibly on prescription meds. A recently used crack pipe was later found in the bathroom, police say.

Arend’s friend told police she witnessed Arend punching her own mother with a closed fist, and Arend attempted to strangle her with a twisted sweatshirt. Arend also used her mother’s metal “reaching aid” to spear her in the upper chest, police said.

Arend also gave police a fight during her arrest. Backups were called. They warned her of being shot by a stun gun. It didn’t stop her, so police used the stun gun to apply handcuffs on her wrists and legs. She still resisted and later spit on them in the squad car, the report states.

Back inside the house, her mother was still fearful for obvious reasons.

“She expressed tearful concern with Ms. Arend’s inevitable release from jail and her returning to the residence,” the officer wrote.

Arend was charged with multiple offenses, including battery, intimidation, battery to household member with a child present, disorderly conduct, and battery to law enforcement.

Three 10-day protection orders were issued against Arend by police to help protect her mother. But, as we all know, there are long odds this volatile mother-daughter reunion will be stopped as time goes on.

America ages, abuse rises

I relay this local incident to shine a light on a subject that most of us would rather conveniently ignore — elder abuse. Roughly two-thirds of abuse to people age 65 and older comes at the hands of their families, research shows, similar to this case.

Worse yet, it’s a problem that quietly mirrors our rising population of Americans 65 and older, which is projected to nearly double by 2030. The number of people age 85 and older is rising at an even faster clip.

Many elder abuse victims are frail, vulnerable and totally dependent on others for their most basic human needs. Others are confused, gullible or simply flimflammed by financial fraud, the most common abuse. And some are prisoners in their own homes.

According to data from the National Elder Abuse Incidence Study, only 16 percent of the abuse situations are referred for help. The rest, 84 percent, remain hidden from society, from cops, even from fellow loved ones.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging estimates there are more than 5 million victims every year, the vast majority invisible due to fear, threats and intimidation.

Worse yet, the most common reason for closing an elder abuse case is the death of a victim — not a guilty verdict. Too many victims refuse to press charges out of fear, retribution, shame or guilt. Or they become enablers to their bully-children.

Adult Protective Services is the principal public agency responsible for investigating reported cases of elder abuse. But, as I said, many victims are too afraid to speak up.

If they have the courage to complain, they typically won’t press charges, similar to wives who won’t press charges against their abusive husbands. Plus, some victims with dementia or mental disabilities simply make bad witnesses, or the threat of loneliness is too much to bear.

The adult child or grandchild, no matter how cruel or irresponsible, could be the only family left after a spouse dies. As I was told years ago by a local social worker, “A lot of widows are preyed on before their husbands are even buried.”

The only upside is this: Elder abuse is preventable and maybe this column will prompt someone to take a stand, file a report and call the authorities.

Report elder abuse

To report elder abuse, call Indiana Adult Protective Services at (800) 992-6978, or call 911.

What is elder abuse?

Abuse: Any touching (battery) of a person in a rude and insolent manner. Verbally abusing an individual is also a punishable offense.

Neglect: The intentional withholding of essential care or service. Abandonment of an individual is also considered neglect.

Exploitation: The intentional misuse of a person’s property, person or services for financial gain.

Warning signs

* Sudden social isolation.

* Bruises, marks, excuses, alibis, and silence regarding possible abuse.

* Unusual or large withdrawals or transfers from bank accounts, or large credit card charges that the older person can’t explain.

* Checks that are missing or include suspicious signatures.

* An individual who suddenly forms a close relationship with the older person, getting easy access to his or her home, money, and other property.

* Untreated physical or mental problems, including a dramatic change in mood or disposition, or other evidence of substandard care.

Source: Indiana Adult Protective Services

Reject assisted suicide

The following letter was written by Dr. William Toffler from Portland Oregon and published in the Ravalli Republic newspaper in Montana on February 6, 2013 under the title: Reject assisted suicide.

As a physician in Oregon where doctor-assisted suicide is legal, I write to urge your readers to contact their legislators to reject assisted-suicide in Montana. 

One of my first requests for assisted-suicide came from a man with multiple sclerosis. He was wheelchair dependent with multiple sclerosis yet lived a very active life. While I was seeing him, I asked him about his disease. He acknowledged it was a major challenge and told me that if he got too much worse, he might want to “just end it.” “It sounds like you are telling me this because you might ultimately want assistance with your own suicide if things got worse,” I said. He nodded affirmatively, and seemed relieved that I seemed to really understand. 

I told him that no matter how debilitated he might become, that, at least to me, his life was, and would always be, inherently valuable. As such, I would not recommend, nor could I participate in his assisted-suicide. 

He simply said, “Thank you.” 

Unfortunately, in Oregon, people are often instead told that they are right to want to die – that their lives have no value. I urge you to not let this tragedy be repeated in Montana. 

William L. Toffler MD
Portland, Oregon

Quebec proposes that its Doctors be forced to become Killlers

Wesley Smith

The following two articles were written by Wesley J. Smith and published February 7, 2013 on his Human Exceptionalism blog under the titles: Quebec Doctors to become Killers?. and Quebec Doctors forced into Homicide?

Article 1: Quebec Doctors to become Killers?.

By Wesley J Smith, February 7, 2012

Quebec

Quebec is about to make a major push to legalize euthanasia based on the recommendations of a commission. I have now had a chance to read the report, and it is pushing Quebec (and thence, Canada) toward a Belgium style culture of death.

Here’s an overview: “First, the euphemism “aid in dying” means active killing by doctors: From the Select Committee Dying With Dignity Report recommendations:

We propose that this option take the form of “medical aid in dying”. This assistance involves an act performed by a physician in a medical setting following a free and informed request made by the patient himself.

Second, the categories of the killable are broad and wide enough to drive a hearse through:

•The person is suffering from a serious, incurable disease;  

•The person is in an advanced state of weakening capacities, with no chance of improvement; 

•The person has constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased under conditions he or she deems tolerable.

Consider: “serious and incurable disease” isn’t a synonym for “terminal disease.” Despite the dicta from the committee that this should be reserved for end of life situations, that is not the wording of the recommendation. Hence, diabetes could qualify in this definition, say, when the patient loses a foot or begins to have vision issues. MS would apply. Serious arthritis. HIV as it turns to AIDS, etc.

The “no chance of improvement” criterion is also a misnomer in most cases, if literally applied. People often go into unexpected improvements of health even when they are unquestionably terminally ill. Some, even get kicked out of hospice because they stop dying. Others have their symptoms effectively palliated. Still others overcome their depression about wanting to die sooner rather than later, and are glad to be alive–if they have the chance to get there

The recommendations would allow doctors to kill incompetent patients who had signed an advance kill directive:

The Committee recommends that relevant legislation be amended to recognize that an adult with the capacity to consent is entitled to give an advance directive for medical aid in dying in the event that he becomes irreversibly unconscious, based on the current state of medical science.

This means that an incompetent patient who might not want to die today, could be killed anyway because he thought he would in the past and because his doctor thinks he should.

Quebec wants to lead Canada off the moral cliff already leaped off of by Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.  It is a radical province growing increasingly so. I hope there are enough people remaining in the French-speaking province who still believe in Hippocratic values and the intrinsic dignity of human life to hold the death agenda at bay.

Article 2: Quebec Doctors may be forced into Homicide.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith, February 7, 2013

No one should be forced to kill or participate in killing. 

But if a recommendation of a Quebec euthanasia commission to legalize doctor-administered death are followed (discussed in more detail here) every Quebec physician will be conscripted to participate in homicide as a condition of practicing medicine.  From the “Dying with Dignity” Commission recommendation:

By definition, medical aid in dying could only be provided by a physician. Under their codes of ethics, physicians and nurses are entitled to conscientious objection, meaning they can refuse to perform an act that goes against their values. Of course, physicians and nurses will retain this right where medical aid in dying is concerned. However, a doctor who refuses to provide medical aid in dying for reasons of conscience will have the duty to help his patient find anotherwho is prepared to do so, as quickly as possible

That would make every doctor in Quebec a potential accomplice in homicide.

Think of it this way: If a hit man were approached by a man to kill his wife, but the murderer didn’t kill women, so instead, referred the husband to a killer he knew would kill females, the original killer would be complicit, indeed, an accomplice in the woman’s murder–even if he didn’t personally pull the trigger. That is akin to what the above recommendation would require of all doctors if it becomes law–forced participation in homicide.

Such a conscience-obliterating law already exists in Victoria, Australia, regarding abortion. (When I traveled the country in 2010 on a speaking tour, I met doctors who moved from their homes to other provinces rather than risk becoming complicit.) The Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) also has issued a similar ethics opinion.

It is a very sad day when doctors must participate in killing as a condition of practicing medicine. But then, we shouldn’t be surprised. The culture of death brooks no dissent. 

Depressed woman dies by euthanasia in Belgium.

Professor Tom Mortier

This article was written by Tom Mortier and published on February 4, 2013 by Mercator.net under the title: How my mother died.

A mentally-ill Belgian woman sought euthanasia to escape her problems. The doctors told her, sure, why not?

How my mother died

Since 2002 a law was passed in Belgium that allowed people to be euthanised when they were suffering intractable and unbearable pain. Today euthanasia is more often granted to people suffering from mental illnesses like chronic depression, schizophrenia, chronic anorexia nervosa and borderline personality disorder, etc.

The law requires that a patient’s free decision has to be established before medical doctors can give the lethal injections.

My mother suffered from chronic depression. Two years ago she broke off all contact with me. In April 2012 she was euthanased at the hospital of Vrije Universiteit Brussel (the Free University of Brussels).

I was not involved in the decision-making process and the doctor who gave her the injection never contacted me.

Since then, my life has changed considerably. Up until now, I am still trying to understand how it is possible for euthanasia to be performed on physically healthy people without even contacting their children. The spokesman of the university hospital told me that everything happened according to my mother’s “free choice”. After my mother’s death, I talked to the doctor who gave her the injection and he told me that he was “absolutely certain” my mother didn’t want to live anymore.

The death of my mother has triggered a lot of questions. How is it possible that people can be euthanised in Belgium without close family or friends being contacted? Why does my country give medical doctors the exclusive power to decide over life and death? How do we judge what “unbearable suffering” is? What are the criteria to decide what “unbearable suffering” is? Can we rely on such a judgment for a mentally ill person?

After all, can a mentally ill person make a “free choice”? Why didn’t the doctors try to arrange a meeting between our mother and her children? How can a medical doctor be “absolutely certain” that his/her patient doesn’t want to live anymore? Why can’t we bear to see people suffering?

Some doctors at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel believe that euthanasia should be offered to anyone who wishes to end his/her life because of unbearable and meaningless suffering. All objections and restraints from the community are regarded as immoral and unjustifiable. These doctors are nowadays even discussing euthanasia for people suffering from autism and youngsters who are suicidal.

What scares me is that these doctors also seem to be controlling the Belgium media. Is this the society we want to evolve to? Are we going to control suicides in the nearby future by putting people out of their misery before they can do it themselves -- instead of investing in mental health and palliative care?

I believe that the appeal to “free choice” is becoming a dogma of convenience. We are rapidly changing into a society of absolute loneliness where we don’t want to take care of each other any more. And when we suffer, we ask our doctors to kill us, breaking fundamental biological and human laws. However, by doing this, we create new and insoluble problems.

Therefore, we really should rethink what we believe in. 

Is it life or is it death?

Tom Mortier PhD lectures in chemistry at Leuven University College. This article was written with the assistance of Dr Steven Bieseman and Professor Emeritus Herman De Dijn. It was originally published in the Belgian medical journal Artsenkrant.