NSW Australian parliament soundly rejects euthanasia bill.

The following (edited) article was written by Paul Russell, the founder and leader of HOPE Australia and published on May 24, 2013 on their blog.

HOPE and Alex Schadenberg influence debate.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, May 24, 2013

On Thursday May 23rd the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013 sponsored by The Hon Cate Faehrmann MLC was defeated in the NSW Upper House by a margin of 23 to 13. There were effectively 5 abstentions and one non-vote due to a vacancy.

In her closing speech and in the media following the bill’s defeat, Ms Faehrmann said that she expects the same bill to be introduced into the NSW Lower House sometime soon.  Given the resounding numbers against the bill in this vote, one wonders how the lower house will view debate on a bill that clearly would not pass muster even if successful in the lower chamber.

There were some significant contributions in speeches both for and against the bill. This remains a highly emotional issue as evidenced in a number of speeches. It would be a callous person indeed who would not be moved by the difficult personal stories raised on both sides.

Reading the hansard of this and other recent debates it would be impossible to conclude that our parliaments had not engaged with the issue in a meaningful way.

A number of politicians referred to the recent Australia 21 report that recommended change to the current law. Some also quoted the Royal Society of Canada report, all claiming in various ways that the laws in The Netherlands and Belgium operate well and without risk. 

Hon David Clarke

To the contrary, The Hon David Clarke MLC quoted studies referenced in Alex Schadenberg’s book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide: 

“The truth is that the euthanasia laws of the Netherlands and Belgium contain a whole string of safeguards which, it was promised, would ensure against abuse of their new euthanasia laws, but this is not what has happened in practice. The so-called safeguards have been abused, evaded and ignored. They have been ineffectual; they have been a total failure. The result has been that many people, a significant percentage, have been euthanased without proper and informed consent. Particularly among the elderly, there is a fear that should they be admitted to hospital or nursing care facilities they risk the prospect of being euthanased without their consent.

“This is not a wild assertion on my part but is based on evidence and fact. For example, in 2010 it was widely reported, including by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, that in the Belgium region of Flanders over 30 per cent of euthanasia cases were conducted without the consent of the patient, according to detailed investigation by Belgian and Dutch researchers. This conclusively showed that between June and November 2007, of 208 reported deaths involving the use of life-ending drugs, 66 were without an explicit request by the patient. It showed that in 77.9 per cent of cases without a patient's consent, the euthanasia option was not even discussed before they were euthanased and that most were undergoing medical treatment with the hope of a cure for their illness.

“Under the Belgian law, which allows euthanasia without terminal illness and for those who are suffering from constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, the law has three supposed safeguards. It requires a patient's written consent, the opinion of a third physician in cases where an illness is not terminal and a one-month waiting period for patients suffering from depression. Yet despite the law enshrining these three procedural requirements before patients can be euthanased, it was found that many physicians were simply ignoring such requirements altogether. 

“In addition, the Belgium media reports that physicians are hesitating to report euthanasia for fear of judicial problems, with an estimated one in four making formal reports of euthanasia. In the Netherlands we find a similar and increasing situation where euthanasia is being administered without a patient's consent. In July 2012 for example the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics reported that it had found that of deaths resulting from euthanasia or assisted suicide 7 per cent were done without an explicit request of the patient. Do I have any confidence that the safeguards contained in The Greens euthanasia bill will be any more effective in preventing euthanasia without consent than the safeguards contained in Dutch and Belgian laws? No, I do not.”

The Hon Greg Donnelly MLC referred directly to Alex Schadenberg's book and HOPE’s intervention:

“In answer to people who wonder why I and others so strongly oppose the proposed legislation, in relation to what we see are fundamental flaws in euthanasia/assisted suicide legislation and our challenging of some of the things that proponents for the legislation claim are not true—such as the slippery slope arguments—I draw their attention to a book entitled Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, written by Alex Schadenberg. The book has been provided to most members in this House, and probably in the other place as well, as part of the provision of information by the organisation Hope: Preventing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and I thank that organisation for circulating the book.” 

Hon Greg Donnelly

In closing we should thank all Members for their contributions. I will close with a special tribute to the work of The Hon Greg Donnelly MLC and his forthright appreciation of the role of parliamentarians everywhere in these debates:

“I participate in this important debate on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013. Honourable members present, past and no doubt future understand that it is a privilege to be given an opportunity to serve the citizens of New South Wales in this place. It is an honour that very few ever get to experience. Since 1824 both men and women have been carrying out the important duties that go with being a member of the Legislative Council. Those duties are many and varied but at the core lies the participation in and overseeing of the making of laws for this State. The ability to do so is derived from the Constitution Act 1901. That Act provides for the making of laws for the "peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever …"

“I submit that what is being proposed presents unequivocally a clear and present danger to the health, welfare and well being of one of the most vulnerable groups in the State at a time when they overwhelmingly need our care, support and love. I have no doubt in my mind that they would be the serious impacts of this bill if it ever made it onto the statute books. I also believe that a number of members in this House and indeed the other place support this view.”

Elder abuse and death by dehydration: A personal story.

Yesterday we published a shocking story about an elder abuse case in Peterborough, whereby a son was able to uncover the abuse of his mother by secretly placing a camera in his mother's room and recording the abuse. Today, I received by email, a personal account from a woman who has decided to tell the personal story of the abuse and death, by dehydration, of her mother.

People need to read this story to understand that euthanasia is not an issue of choice, but rather an issue of control over life and death. If euthanasia were legal, this woman would have been lethally injected rather than killed by dehydration over 15 days.

A True Account of Client Bullying Contributing to the Death of a Patient

She was 84 years old, perhaps a lot like your own mother or grandmother. She was brought to the hospital by her abuser/bully. This woman was my mother, and the bully was her daughter—my older sister. She was also mom’s medical decision-maker, by proxy of a man who had left her 25 years earlier; they never dissolved their marriage legally, which gave him complete authority. He gave his authority to the bully. Because of opportunity and distance of my siblings and myself, the bully was also the only one who managed to obtain a sign HIPAA form prior to my mom’s crises.

After refusing to take my mom home after one Thanksgiving, the bully kept her prisoner at her home for the week, where she mistreated her—such as taking away her wedding ring and making her wear adult diapers she did not need. After pressure created by my report to Adult Protective Services, the bully dumped mom at a hospital she hadn’t been to before, telling emergency room staff that her ‘dementia’ had gotten worse. In reality, mom had just come from a week of abuse.

Mom had brain damage from multiple strokes, and she was not able to speak or comprehend verbal information with any more than about 5% accuracy. However, I discovered that I could reach a perfect meeting of the minds with mom through laminated picture cards I created for her.

When she was dumped at the emergency room, my mom was given sedatives that kept her asleep for days at a time. A brain scan was ordered, and compared to the previous scan she had, which proved there was no additional brain damage: her ‘dementia’ had not gotten worse.

The bully refused to allow mom to go home, where she had been living independently. Mom always felt strongly about staying in her home, and did not want even to live with any of her children.  Before long, the bully had mom admitted to yet another hospital—one that was not affiliated with the previous facility. The hospital staff was dependent on the bully to provide pertinent medical details about mom’s medical history.

Having received the wrong patient background information, the doctor at the hospital prescribed mom drugs that she did not need—sedatives that kept her sleeping for long periods of time because of her age and the inability of her body to excrete the drugs as quickly as a younger person would. The result was that mom had no opportunity to eat or drink while being sedated. The bully refused to provide a feeding tube.

The bully/abuser would then be at the hospital every day, and agitate mom by gaslighting techniques.

“Another common disruptive behavior is gaslighting. This is a term taken from an old 1940s’ movie, ‘Gaslight,’ which told the story of a wealthy heiress who was being driven mad by her ostensibly kind and loving husband.

Unbeknownst to the heiress, the husband would climb to the attic and fiddle with the fuel supply to the gaslights that lit the home. As the lights flickered, the heiress expressed concern, but her husband denied seeing the fluctuation. By denying obvious reality, he so confused his wife that she began to doubt her sanity….you find yourself doubting what you know to be true” (Oakley, 2009).

The bully was unknowingly seen by my other sister, who witnessed her twirling her finger up to mom’s face, pull back, than up to her face again. The bully’s young son was taught to do the same, as he was also seen participating at the same time.

Once the patient is agitated, the bully was then able to rush to the nurse’s station in a very upset manner and not calm down until the nurse administers the as-need sedative.

My mom was admitted to Hospice care without the staff meeting with five of her children who knew the truth about her real medical condition. Only those the bully could influence were invited to determine admission. Once mom was admitted to Hospice, she withdrew consent for mom’s intravenous line, which was keeping her hydrated. The bully pressured nurses to administer the as-needed morphine constantly.

My mom held on to life for 15 days when the court took away the estranged husband’s rights. We all agreed to a third party guardian. The bully was heard to comment to the estranged husband she would agree if the medical records weren’t changed: The same medical records that contained all the work of her lies, and the results of her abuse to my mom.  The guardian gave my mom back her intravenous line, but mom died two days later—abused and bullied.

Multiple times family members tried to tell the staff what was happening. But they would do nothing more than listen, and continue to follow the bully’s instructions. The nurses were not allowed to give out information to mom’s five other children because the bully wouldn’t allow it. We had no idea what lies the staff was being told. I can only guess that it was something along the lines of: 

“They are really upset because she is dying and they can’t accept that. It’s best if we don’t give them any details that would upset them further. Let me tell them what I think is best. They just can’t face reality, etc.”

When a patient is not able to communicate whether or not they are in pain, there is a procedure to determine whether pain medication should be given. These include things such as facial expressions and other body language. Mom displayed none of these behaviors, and tried to refuse medication whenever she was aware enough to know what they were doing. Yet the nurses administered the medication anyway.

Why? Because the bully found a way to compel them to act. While a few nurses did what they could to follow correct procedure—delaying the medication, or just not giving it—the majority of nurses did not.

Please do not let my mom’s death be in vain. Please give the nurses all the tools they need to protect patients. Please?

Euthanasia bill soundly defeated in New South Wales Australia

Australia

A bill to legalize euthanasia in New South Wales Australia was defeated yesterday in the NSW Upper House by a resounding vote of 23 to 13.

Congratulations to Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia, and its coalition partners for coordinating the massive defeat of this dangerous bill.

The bill titled: The Rights of the Terminally Ill, was introduced by Greens MLC Kate Faehrmann.

ABC News Australia reported that:

The bill was defeated 23 votes to 13. 

After an emotional debate, there was an outburst from the public gallery as it became apparent MPs were about to vote down the bill. 

All sides were given a conscience vote on the issue, but no Coalition MP voted in favour of the bill, although some abstained.

The ABC News article stated in its conclusion that:

Ms Faehrmann says the campaign for voluntary euthanasia will continue and the bill will be introduced to the lower house by her Greens colleague Jamie Parker and two Independent MPs.

The annual bill to legalize euthanasia in South Australia is expected to be voted-on soon and a bill to legalize euthanasia in Tasmania is expected to be introduced soon, even though the Tasmanian legislature is believed to be split 12 to 12 on the issue of euthanasia.

The group REALdignitytas is effectively opposing euthanasia in Tasmania.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the work of HOPE Australia as it organizes on a National and State basis to protect Australians from euthanasia.

Elder abuse caught on video, incident is not isolated

Hellen MacDonald &
her son Camille Parent

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Peterborough Ontario Newspaper reported on the elder abuse of Hellen MacDonald, who was living in long-term care. Her son Camille Parent was upset about the care of his mother and decided to install a hidden camera to uncover what was happening to his mother.  

The story states:

Camille Parent had enough.

He wanted answers and was willing to go to any lengths to protect his 85-year-old mother. That meant placing a hidden camera in Hellen MacDonald’s long-term care room at St. Joseph’s at Fleming. 

“I can’t tell you how I felt with what we uncovered,” explains Mr. Parent.
The alleged abuse started in August. Ms MacDonald had an unexplained black eye and scratches. In January, she broke her hip. Mr. Parent says the blame was put on a resident. She was pushed, but officials didn’t know by whom. He didn’t like how the situation was handled. 

video footage

“We put the camera there thinking we were going to catch which residents were doing this too her because it needed to stop,” adds Mr. Parent. 

The video -- which reveals wandering residents entering Ms. MacDonald’s room, a personal support worker putting feces near Ms MacDonald face  and aggressively handling Ms MacDonald, and another personal support worker blowing his nose in Ms MacDonald’s bed sheets -- has shocked the community, caused the suspension with pay of two employees and led to an investigation by both Peterborough-Lakefield police and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. “It was just unbelievable,” says Mr. Parent. 

Mr. Parent hopes the video will result in charges being laid. 

“We need to make an example out of abuse,” he says.  

St. Joseph's at Fleming

St. Joseph’s at Fleming chief executive officer Alan Cavell says he wants to reassure family members and others out there that what is alleged to have occurred in the video is a great concern. The alleged actions of employees is unacceptable, he says. 

“We’re committed to making sure this is best environment and family members can feel good about their family member staying here,” he says. 

Health and Long-Term Care Minister Deb Matthews says the ministry has no tolerance for abuse in long-term care homes. 

“While I can’t yet comment further on this case, I can assure you my ministry officials are investigating,” she explains. 

Mr. Parent says he recently spoke with Minister Matthews and asked her to resign. 

“It is not only her, it is the government, both major governments, the blue and the red are ignoring this,” he says. 

While she has not seen the video and is not aware of the specifics of the individual circumstances relating to the alleged incidences captured on the video, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario Secretary-Treasurer Candace Rennick, herself a former long-term care worker, said the union is taking these allegations very seriously. 

“We do not condone or tolerate any form of resident abuse or neglect. We are committed to continuing to work constructively with residents’ families and the provincial government to ensure care quality in homes improves. We are also mindful of our obligation to represent our members in the workplace,” she says in a press release. 

 Recent media investigations into abuse and resident-on-resident violence in long-term care homes has put a spotlight on the pervasive issues that many experts agree stem from systemic sector underfunding and low staffing levels while homes are attempting to deal with a growing number of residents with complex behaviours, including dementia and Alzheimer’s.
  
“Imagine how much better care would be and how much safer residents and staff would be if staffing levels were higher, and homes had enough funding so two staff work together during shifts. No one is working alone and residents get the care they need,” she adds.

“You wouldn’t do that to an animal.”

“Our government introduced the Long-Term Care Homes Act and we continue to work on the recommendations of the sector-led Long-Term Care Task Force on Resident Care and Safety because our loved ones deserve nothing but the best care.”

“Anyone that is in power and turns their head away from the situation is as guilty as the people performing the acts of abuse.”

CTV news reported on the case with an article titled: Nursing home abuse incident not isolated. CTV reported on the recent settlement of the largest class action lawsuit in Quebec and it concerned elder abuse. The article stated that:

A class action lawsuit detailing hundreds of cases of abuse at the facility was launched in 1999. But it wasn’t until 2003, when family members secretly set up tape recorders to capture staff verbally and psychologically abusing residents, that action was finally taken. 

That scandal made national headlines and public discussions about the conditions in Quebec nursing homes and may have contributed to the suicide death of the hospital’s director. 

Last month, the class action suit was finally settled, leading to the largest settlement of its kind in Canadian history. More than $7 million will be shared by hundreds of residents and the families of residents who have since died during the 13-year investigation.

Hellen MacDonald with her son.

The settlement is also unique in that it sets aside funds for foundations that are dedicated to educating seniors and patients about their rights. 

Menard says he learned during his investigation that a single abusive act at one of these facilities is rarely an isolated incident, and that abuse often starts with small infringements of patients’ rights and then escalates.

He advises patients and their families to denounce the early signs of improper behaviour.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes the scourge of elder abuse as a sign of a societal attitude that dehumanizes vulnerable citizens, especially those who are unable to defend or speak for themselves. We also lament the fact that similar abuse occurs in care homes for people with disabilities.

A society that has devalued the lives of seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable people to the point that abuse can occur without detection and basic protections for people who are supposedly receiving care are not in place, must not even consider legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable persons proves that any supposed "safeguards" will be ignored and abused in many circumstances leading to many deaths without request, as is happening in Belgium.

For more information go to: Physician-Assisted Suicide is a recipe for elder abuse.

Canadian study proves that the "suicide contagion" effect exists.

A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in the May 21, 2013 issue proves the theory that exposure to suicide leads to a "suicide contagion" effect.

The study titled: Association between exposure to suicide and suicidality outcomes in youth, was authored by Sonja A. Swanson from the Harvard School of Public Health and Ian Coleman from the University of Ottawa School of Public Health.

The study assessed the association between exposure to suicide and suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among young people based on a cross-sectional and prospective two year follow-up study done between 1998 and 2007. The study examined the responses from 8766 children aged 12 - 17 years.

1. The respondents were asked whether anyone in their school had died by suicide (schoolmate's suicide) and they were also asked if they personally knew someone who died by suicide (personally known suicide)?

2. Respondents were asked if they had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year? If they answered yes, they were asked to report the number of suicide attempts in the past year?

The study assessed whether personally knowing a peer decedent increased the risk of suicidality outcomes relative to a lesser-known peer decedent.

Exposure to suicide: 
The study found that aged 16-17, 24.1% of the respondents reported a schoolmate's suicide and 20.1% reported personally knowing someone who died by suicide.

Cross-sectional analysis:
(a) Risk of suicidal ideation and attempted suicide if the person was exposed to a suicide.

Ages 12-13: 15.3% of those exposed to suicide in the past year had suicidal ideation and 7.5% had attempted suicide, while 3.4% of those unexposed to suicide had suicidal ideation and 1.7% attempted it. 

Ages 14-15: 14.2% of those exposed to suicide in the past year had suicidal ideation and 8.6% had attempted suicide, while 5.3% of those unexposed to suicide had suicidal ideation and 2.3% attempted it. 

Ages 16-17: 15.1% of those exposed to suicide in the past year had suicidal ideation and 8.1% had attempted suicide, while 7.4% of those unexposed to suicide had suicidal ideation and 2.7% attempted it

(b) Risk of suicidal ideation and attempted suicide if the person personally know the person who died by suicide.

Ages 12-13: 13.7% had suicidal ideation and 5.6 % had attempted suicide, if they personally knew a person who died by suicide, while 4.6% had suicidal ideation and 2.3% had attempted suicide if they did not personally know a person who died by suicide. 

Ages 14-15: 18.4% had suicidal ideation and 12.5% had attempted suicide, if they personally knew a person who died by suicide, while 7.6% had suicidal ideation and 3.6% had attempted suicide if they did not personally know a person who died by suicide. 

Ages 16-17: 14% had suicidal ideation and 8.4% had attempted suicide, if they personally knew a person who died by suicide, while 8.1% had suicidal ideation and 3.2% had attempted suicide if they did not personally know a person who died by suicide.

The study found that personally knowing someone who died by suicide presented a marginally greater risk of suicidal ideation or attempted suicide in relation to exposure to suicide alone.

The study stated:

"We found that exposure to suicide predicts suicidality. This is true for all age groups, although exposure to suicide increased the risk most dramatically in the youngest age group, when the baseline suicidality was relatively low. ... Exposure was consistently associated with attempts and to a lesser degree ideation; some of these associations were still significant 2 years later."

Exposure to suicide is not uncommon. The study indicated that 9% of the 16-17 age group reported that a schoolmate had died by suicide in the past year and 15% reported that a schoolmate had died by suicide more than a year earlier.

Since the study found that personally knowing a schoolmate who died by suicide was only of marginal greater risk for suicidal ideation or attempted suicide as compared to exposure to suicide alone therefore the study emphasized the importance of suicide prevention strategies being implemented within a whole school rather than focus on the friends of the person who died by suicide.

The Globe and Mail newspaper quoted study author Ian Coleman as saying:

"2009 Statistics Canada figures show 227 Canadians aged 10 to 19 died by their own hands, with 202 of those cases were among 15 to 19-years-olds. But as the second leading cause of death after accidental injury among Canadian youth, it’s an issue that needs to be taken seriously."

The Canadian Medical Association stated:

Exposure to suicide within the last 2 years was associated with suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among Canadian youths. This finding is based on responses from 8766 children aged 12–17 years in a national survey carried out between 1998 and 2007. The findings support school-wide or community-wide interventions over targeted strategies following a suicide, say the authors.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is concerned with the connection between suicide and assisted suicide.

This study did not examine the effect of access to suicide devices or weapons related to suicide attempts. 

This study also did not examine the effect of suicide exposure related to how the media reports a suicide death. Considering the fact that exposure to a suicide death when the person is a similar age and part of the same community is related to a significant increased risk for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts it is likely that how the media reports suicide deaths also increases the risk for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts especially when the person who dies by suicide is a similar age.

The World Health Organization published a set of guidelines to prevent suicide. One of the best practices include the media, when reporting about suicide, should at offer a links to suicide prevention resources.

A great suicide prevention resource is the group Your Life Counts.

The EPC urges researchers to do a study on the relationship between suicide, assisted suicide and the promotion or normalizing of assisted suicide upon the rate of suicide. 

In the state of Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1998, the suicide rate has been steadily climbing. The suicide rate in Oregon is now 49% higher than the national average.

How legalizing euthanasia changed Belgium.

The following article was originally published on MercatorNet on May 17, 2013

By Tom Mortier & Steven Bieseman

In 2002, Belgium became the second country in the world after its neighbour, the Netherlands, to legalise euthanasia. Over the next decade our country has become a living laboratory for radical social change. With many other countries debating legalisation at the moment, now is a good moment to stand back and take a good long look at the results.

In 2002 Belgium was governed by a coalition of Liberals and Social Democrats. The slightly more conservative Christian Democrats had been excluded. With blue as the colour of the Liberals and red of the left-leaning Social Democrats, the press dubbed it the Purple coalition.

The Christian Democrats took a dim view of euthanasia, but they were in opposition. The Purple coalition was free to pass a euthanasia law based on the view that an individual should always have a “free choice” to end his life. In absolutizing individual self-determination the left and the right found common ground.

The law states that doctors can help patients to die when they freely express a wish to die because they are suffering intractable and unbearable pain. The patient needs to consult a second independent doctor; for non-terminal illnesses an independent psychiatrist must approve. In practice, however, this independence is irrelevant. Belgium is a small country and compliant doctors are easy to find.

A string of recent cases leaves no doubt that the euthanasia law has fundamentally and drastically changed Belgian society. Last year 45-year-old deaf identical twin brothers who couldn’t bear the thought of going blind were granted euthanasia. Doctors granted their request because they “had nothing to live for” anyway. According to the doctor who gave the lethal injection it was not “such a big deal”.

In another case, a 44-year-old woman with chronic anorexia nervosa was euthanased. Then a 64-year-old woman suffering from chronic depression was euthanased without informing her relatives. The doctors defended their decisions by explaining that these extreme and exceptional cases were legitimate because all legal conditions were met.

Euthanasia is hardening from a medical option into an ideology. Belgium’s euthanasia doctors even believe they are being humane because they are liberating people from their misery. Fundamentalist humanists go further and describe euthanasia as the ultimate act of self-determination. The opinion of the patient’s family has no weight whatsoever. A doctor is entitled to give the mother of a family a lethal injection without offering any explanation to her children. Euthanasia is being promoted as a “beautiful” and positive way to die. Doctors are transplanting organs from patients who die in the operation. (This is said to make their lives meaningful.) The law may soon allow children and patients with dementia to be euthanased.

Since 2002 opponents of the law (like us) have been marginalised as rigid and heartless conservatives who feel ill at ease in a post-modern, pluralistic and progressive society like Belgium. (1) The Christian Democrats have repudiated their traditional values and support the law. Questioning it has become taboo because the absolute right of the individual might be violated.

Herman De Dijn

There are still some significant critics, apart from the Catholic Church. The Belgian philosopher Herman De Dijn is an outspoken opponent. He describes Belgium as a “sentimentalist society” in which traditional values have been drastically minimized and replaced by subjective preferences. (2) A sentimentalist society no longer subscribes to ethical values other than those which are related to the search for individual happiness (autonomy and no-harm). Communal responsibilities and moral institutions are being discarded in the search for purely individual well-being; interdependence and connectedness are ignored.

De Dijn feels that this is the nub of the problem. A human being is not a bundle of individual feelings, opinions and preferences, but part of a species, a member of mankind, a vital link in the moral ecology where every individual has a unique symbolic value. Respect for human dignity includes not only respect for personal choices but also for connectedness to loved ones and society.

  

Supporters of the euthanasia regime repudiate this secular critique -- as well as the baneful influence of the Catholic Church. (3) However, their ideology of absolute self-determination has become so strong that it is morphing into a theology, a quasi-religious fanaticism. They have invented comforting symbols and rituals to express their beliefs. A self-determination card describes a patient’s final wishes so that the social services know what to do in a terminal illness. There are centres where people can ask questions about how euthanasia can be performed. There is indoctrination in self-determination for doctors and volunteers who wear their euthanasia enabler certificates as badges of honour.

Nonetheless, we are hopeful. Surely it must be possible to convince the Belgian public that something is terribly, terribly wrong when politicians are debating whether parents can legally have their children put down. It is not humane and it is not scientific. There is no scientific scale of unbearable suffering. With advances in pain relief, euthanasia is not even needed.

The key insight of the green movement is that all living beings are interconnected – even us humans. Especially us humans. The job of politicians is to protect this connectedness. Otherwise, why should parents care for their dependent children? Why should children care for dependent parents? Once we lose the sense that each of us is bound to one another with invisible cords of fellowship, we will end by killing all those who are burdens on society. And at some stage, all of us are going to be burdens.

Euthanasia does not threaten religious dogmas. Churches will stay open no matter what happens in hospitals and nursing homes. What is threatened is humanism. Instead of standing strong, arms linked together as brothers and sisters, the dogma of self-determination separates us, places us in bubbles of isolation, and then offers to kill us – if we want.

In today’s Belgium all of us are at risk.

Tom Mortier and Steven Bieseman teach in Leuven University College, in Belgium. They would like to thank Emeritus Professor Herman De Dijn for valuable discussions and Sylvia Statz for advice about translating the text.

Notes

(1) Burms A. and De Dijn H., De sacraliteit van leven en dood, Pelckmans Uitgeverij nv, Kalmthout, (2011), S. 71-89.

(2) De Dijn H., Taboes, monsters en loterijen, Uitgeverij Pelckmans, Kapellen (2003), S. 23-25.

(3) Burms A. and De Dijn H., De sacraliteit van leven en dood, Pelckmans Uitgeverij nv, Kalmthout, (2011), S. 91-99.

True Dignity Vermont establishes watchdog hotline to protect Vermont citizens from assisted suicide.

Watchdog Group Launches Hotline

True Dignity Vermont has launched an abuse hotline in response to the recently-passed bill that will allow Vermont physicians to prescribe lethal drugs  to terminally ill patients.

Individuals who suspect patients of being unduly influenced to request or ingest lethal drugs, or of being given such drugs against their will, can report such concerns by calling: 1-855-787-5455 (1-855-STP-KILL) or emailing True Dignity Vermont at:  ReportAbuse@TrueDignityVt.org.

A citizen-led, grassroots initiative, True Dignity Vermont worked alongside other organizations to vigorously oppose the legalization of prescription death in Vermont. That effort failed with the passage of an amended bill on May 13, but leaders say they will press forward to work to protect vulnerable Vermonters who will be at risk as a result of what they call “dangerous, poorly conceived legislation.”

“We believe our role must now expand to that of watchdog, as well as providing education and a resource clearinghouse for Vermonters who want to be sure they will be protected from coercion to end their lives,” according to True Dignity spokesperson Carolyn McMurray of Bennington. 

“The bill that Governor Shumlin is signing into law is fraught with problems that will leave vulnerable patients open to abuse, and will damage patient-doctor trust,” she said,  adding that True Dignity Vermont plans to develop a registry of “safe” doctors, nursing homes and other health care providers who will not participate in assisted suicide. 

“Vermonters need to be reassured that the end of life need not be frightening and painful, and that they will be supported properly with the very best palliative care and pain control. Enabling suicide is not a compassionate response to suffering.”

More information about True Dignity Vermont is available at: http://truedignityvt.org/

1700 March in Quebec City against euthanasia

The following article was edited from its original version that was published by LifeSiteNews on May 20, 2013.

By Georges Buscemi

Nearly 2000 people converged on the Quebec Capital on a brilliant spring Saturday afternoon to March against a government plan to legalise euthanasia in the province. Called the “Springtime March”, the event attracted euthanasia opponents from all corners of the province to protest the Parti québécois government’s proposal to allow “medical aid in dying” –the direct and intentional killing of a patient—under certain conditions. Junior minister Veronique Hivon indicated at the beginning of the year that she would table a bill legalizing the deadly practise before the province’s parliament adjourned for the summer.

The March participants assembled on the historic Plains of Abraham, where they heard speeches delivered by a vast array of Quebec euthanasia opponents including Amy Hasbrouck of Not Dead Yet, an organisation defending the rights of disabled people, and Dr. Patrick Vinay, former dean of medicine at the University of Montreal and palliative care expert. Also present were Dr. Catherine Ferrier representing Physicians Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia, Linda Couture of the Living with Dignity Network and Louis-André Richard, a philosophy professor, bioethics expert and spokesperson for the Quebec Rally against Euthanasia.

Hugh Scher

The Marchers then processed through Quebec City via the Grande Allée chanting slogans such as “killing is not care” and arrived before the Quebec National Assembly where speakers once again rallied the crowd. The crowd seemed especially appreciative of a speech by Hugh Scher of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who affirmed that “dangerous lessons” ought to be learned from the legalisation of euthanasia in Holland and Belgium and that “each of us is at risk” when life becomes devalued.

Organised by the Quebec Rally Against Euthanasia – an ad hoc group headed by Dr. Claude Morin, an emergency-room doctor in Quebec City – the March was firmly backed by the province’s Catholic bishops.

At the close of the event Dr. Claude Morin stated that he hoped that the day’s message would make it to the ears of the PQ government, but that in the event that the bill would nonetheless be tabled, he invited the assembled crowd to return for a second protest.