Motion: Western Australia focuses on stopping elder abuse.

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published on the HOPE Australia blog on September 21, 2013.

Hon. Nick Goiran

The Hon Nick Goiran MLC, member of the Western Australian Parliament, tabled and spoke to a motion calling for more to be done to stop the growing problem of Elder Abuse last Thursday the 19th of September.

Nick spoke at the 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International Symposium in Vancouver Canada and will be speaking at the Euthanasia Symposium 2013 - November 8 - 9, 2013 in Toronto.

The Motion:

That the Legislative Council -

a) acknowledges the growing problem of elder abuse in Western Australia;

b) commends the work of non-government and government programs to prevent elder abuse; and

c) calls on the whole community to work together to eliminate elder abuse in all its forms.

Western Australia

Goiran prefaced his speech by identifying the two aspects of the human condition that make elder abuse so insidious:

...I am conscious of two aspects of the human condition that we must bear in mind in confronting the problem of elder abuse. The first is that there are times and circumstances that make members of the human family more vulnerable to abuse and therefore more in need of protection from the whole community.

This obviously applies to children, both born and unborn, who are in the nature of things dependent on the adults into whose care they are entrusted for the necessities of life. This also applies, in my view, to those who have profound disabilities, whether intellectual or physical. Advancing age can bring its own set of vulnerabilities including physical frailty, mental confusion and dementia, loss of support networks such as through the death of a spouse, and social isolation. 

The second aspect of the human condition to which I refer is the reality that some human beings will take advantage of the vulnerabilities of others for their own ends including for power, financial gain and sexual gratification. In all too many cases the perpetrator will be someone who has a duty of care based on kinship or professional responsibility to their victim. 

Arizona man pleads guilty to manslaughter in assisted suicide.

Tyler Gunn

The Arizona Daily Star reported that Tyler Christopher Gunn, 47, pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter in the courtroom of Pima County Superior Court Judge Paul Tang on Friday.

This case is the prime example of why assisted suicide must be prohibited.

Gunn was accused of assisting the suicide of Katherine Lemberg 37, and researching the plan to commit suicide in Redington Pass on the far east side in January.

Gunn admitted to police that he helped Lemberg commit suicide by placing a bag over her head, taping it closed and directing helium gas into the bag.

Police found Lemberg dead with Gunn at his parents home, where he had taken her body after helping her commit suicide in Redington Pass. Why Lemberg wanted to die is unknown.

Gunn was originally accused of first-degree murder for helping Lembourg commit suicide.

Gunn had been released on bond but was taken into custody in the courtroom Friday following his guilty plea.

He is scheduled for sentencing on November 11. Gunn faces a sentence of seven to 10 ½ years in prison.

Readers of this who are thinking about suicide contact. Suicide hotline.

Link to similar articles:

Oregon Governor signs bill outlawing suicide kits.

Suicide kits under fire in Oregon.

Shut down of assisted suicide kit business.

Queensland Australia will not legalize euthanasia.

The Brisebane Times is reporting that Jarrod Bleijie, the Queensland Australia Attorney-General stated:

“The Queensland Government has no plans to make changes to the laws in this regard”

Jarrod Bleijie

The Brisebane Times article stated:

"Successive petitions asking for assisted suicide or euthanasia have been rejected by the Attorney-General, who acknowledges it as an issue which “polarises” the community. 

“At the essence of this debate, is how best to balance the competing values of the desire of individuals to choose to die with dignity when suffering and the need to uphold the inherent right to life of every person,” Mr Bleijie responded. 

Under current state law, euthanasia is a criminal offence."

Hon. Kevin Andrews with Paul Russell

Bleijie explained that palliative care is available and when pain is difficult to control, aggressive palliative care measures can be used. He explained that aggressive pain control does not provide any justification for euthanasia.

Advertisement

The euthanasia debate was last seriously discussed in Queensland in 2010.

Paul Russell and HOPE Australia have been instrumental in defeating attempts to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide throughout Australia.

I had "only a month to live" - 31 months ago!

I was told I had “only a month to live”—31 months ago! On Valentine’s Day, 2011, my soul mate (wife) and I sat in my Veterans Administration doctor’s office as he delivered the stunning news that I had stage four pancreatic cancer.

We fought it with every form of chemo known to medicine. We made the 320 mile round trip from our home in Wisconsin to the VA clinic in Minneapolis so often that first year that we put over 8,000 miles on the car. It got easier when I turned 65. Medicare took over so I could get treatments closer to home.

After a CAT scan showed that I was not getting any worse, my nice young doctor pulled his chair very close, looked me in the eye and told me I had been given a gift. He had no idea why I was still alive or why the cancer wasn’t going anywhere.

Now there is no more chemo to try. In June, the prediction was that I have three to six months left. But, who knows?

I still enjoy a good game of golf. My friend Dick had a memorial golf bench made in my name. It sits in front of the clubhouse. I’m the only living person to ever sit on his own memorial bench. Dick said he got tired of carrying that bench in his truck for two years, so he just dropped it off.

The moral is, don’t give up. No doctor can accurately pinpoint how long a person has to live. I’ve lived a full and happy life, and it’s not over yet.

Sincerely,

Larry Larson

Euthanasia: Societal Psychosis

The following article was published in the Windsor Star on September 20, 2013.

By: Jean Echlin, a nurse consultant in palliative nursing who lives in Windsor Ontario.

What kind of a society are we becoming? I question the existence of a societal psychosis, characterized by a break with reality and deviation from normal thought processes.

We abandon the notion of executing our most heinous criminals and now appear to be accepting the idea of executing our most vulnerable citizens.

We provide our criminals with good medical, occupational, entertainment and educational programs for their betterment.

In the case of our elderly we often fail miserably at providing them with quality of life in our health-care institutions. Many label our elderly and persons with disabilities, including children, as “lives not worth living.”

In addition this applies to persons with mental health issues. These are the ones at high risk for abuse if euthanasia is introduced.

This is exactly what the Quebec National Assembly is proposing in Bill-52 now before the Assembly for discussion and vote. The ideas were concocted by the Dying with Dignity Committee report following a request by the Assembly for research regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide in Quebec.

The recommendation in Bill-52 attaches euthanasia as a component of palliative hospice care. The euphemism used for euthanasia in their documents is “assistance in dying.”

Thus end-of-life care will include both palliative care and euthanasia. This flies in the face of the federal government’s defeat of Bill-384, introduced by Francine Lalonde MP, Bloc Quebecois, in 2010. Bill-384 sought to change our Criminal Code to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide and was overwhelming defeated by 228 to 59 votes.

Bill-52’s legislative package designates doctors as the health-care professionals who will do the euthanizing/executing.

Interestingly in a recent poll, 88 per cent of Canadian palliative care physicians opposed euthanasia. Moreover in August 2013, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) reaffirmed its policy on this matter: “Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide.” The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association have taken the same stand.

Those in our society who want euthanasia as an option are seeking autonomy without thinking how this will affect the many vulnerable and often silent voices who cannot protest.

How do you define autonomy, meaning: “I want death my way, at my request,” when you actually give your life over to another person who will kill you?

I do not see this as autonomy because you are giving your power to another person. Executions have been botched! Mistakes are always possible even with health-care professionals.

Another highly charged item in Bill-52 is chronic depression and mental pain/discomfort (which may be related to existential or spiritual anxiety) qualifies a person for euthanasia. Who defines this type of suffering?

Look back to 1972 at the history of abolition of the death penalty in Canada. The law was changed because, first, a wrong decision could be made and an innocent person put to death. Second, doctors debated and decided that putting someone to death was unethical and against their mandate.

Further it was declared INHUMANE to ask one person to kill another person. Now in 2013 the Quebec National Assembly has put forth a plan, subject only to provincial jurisdiction that designates doctors to kill another human being.

Who defines the ethical and moral action of this designation? I do not believe that this designation is ethical, moral or humane.

Links to similar articles:

Poll: the majority of doctors oppose assisted suicide.

Canadian society of Palliative care physicians oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Rebranding killing and suicide: The ugly truth about euthanasia.

Quebec euthanasia law (Bill 52) is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.

Euthanasia Symposium 2013 (November 8 - 9) Toronto.

The Euthanasia Symposium 2013 is at the Renaissance Marriott hotel in downtown Toronto November 8 - 9, 2013.  Link. 

Come meet the world leaders and learn from their experience.

November 8 (7 - 9) pm  - November 9 (9 am - 5 pm).

Registration (includes lunch speaker): (Pay online)
$149 (regular) or $129 (students or people with disabilities). 

Book your room for $119 (online) at the Marriott hotel up to October 18;. 

Speakers include:  

 • Dr. Margaret Cottle (Canada) - Palliative care physician

 • Margaret Dore (Washington State) - Choice is an Illusion 

 • Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick (France) - EPC Europe

 • Amy Hasbrouck (Canada) - Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet  
 • Dr. Will Johnston (Canada) - EPC - BC

 • John Kelly (Massachusetts) - Second Thoughts 

 • Derek Miedema (Canada) - Researcher 

 • Dr. David Richmond (New Zealand) - Euthanasia Debate  
 • Henk Reitsma (Netherlands) - EPC International

 • Tim Rosales (California) - Californians Against Assisted Suicide 

 • Paul Russell Australia - HOPE Australia 

 • Dr. Peter Saunders (UK) - Care Not Killing Alliance 

 • Alex Schadenberg (Canada) - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 

 • Nic Steenhout (Quebec Canada) - Vivre dans la Dignité

A donation of $129.00 will enable a student or a person with a disability to attend the Euthanasia Symposium.

There is also a leadership forum on November 8 (daytime).
For more information contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call: 1-877-439-3348.

BBC assisted suicide bias challenged by the Care Not Killing Alliance

The BBC's responsibility as the national broadcaster to present current affairs in a balanced and unbiased way does not tally with its long track record of presenting assisted suicide and euthanasia in a positive light in all aspects of programming. From news and documentaries to soap, drama and comedy, the corporation has justifiably been called a 'cheerleader for assisted suicide'.

Stephen Hawking

Yesterday (Tuesday), a BBC breakfast interview with cosmologist Prof Stephen Hawking to coincide with the publication of his autobiography was boiled down to 'Stephen Hawking speaks out about assisted suicide', causing sensational headlines around the world.

On the back of this, Lord (Charles) Falconer - a noted advocate whose assisted suicide bill is currently awaiting second reading in the House of Lords - was invited this (Wednesday) morning to make his case for a change in the law, at length and without opposition or balance, on BBC Breakfast at 0820.

If you share our view that this morning's interview represents a glaring, though not isolated, example of biased reporting from the BBC on this issue, please contact them with your concerns. Ask for a reply.

• Why was the substantial amount of time given to Lord Falconer not used more effectively to air a proper debate, with an opposing viewpoint?
• Why did the broadcast at no point allow a contrary view to be expressed?
• Why was it not mentioned that a change in the law is opposed as uncontrollable, unethical and unnecessary by the vast majority of doctors, by major medical organisations including the BMA, the Royal Colleges and the Association for Palliative Medicine and by all major disability rights organisations?
• Did the broadcast conform to guidelines for media discussion of suicide, such as those of the World Health Organisation, which calls for the media to 'avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents it as a solution to problems'?

You should direct any complaints regarding this broadcast to the BBC and also Ofcom.

Thank you for your continued support.

Links to similar articles:
Assisted suicide arrest in the UK reminds us of why assisted suicide is prohibited.
An analysis of the Nicklinson euthanasia decision by the British Court of Appeal.
Home care boss calls for Dignitas assisted suicide clinics in Britain.

Stephen Hawking creates confusion about what constitutes assisted suicide.

Stephen Hawking

Reuters reported today that scientist, Stephen Hawking, supports assisted suicide. 

At the same time, the comments made by Hawking in the Reuters article create confusion as to what actually constitutes assisted suicide.

The Reuters article reports Hawking as stating:
Speaking ahead of the release of a documentary about his life this week:

Hawking said he backed the right to die but only if the person involved had chosen that route.  

He recalled how he was once put on a life support machine after suffering pneumonia and his wife was given the option of switching off the machine but this is not something he wanted.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition agrees that life support machines, in this case a ventilator, should only be turned off when a person wants it turned off, but turning off a ventilator does not constitute an act of assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Assisted suicide is to aid, encourage or counsel a person to commit suicide. Assisted suicide therefore is based on someone providing the means or encouraging or counseling a person to kill themselves

Euthanasia is when one person causes the death of another person, whereby the death is directly and intentionally caused by the action or omission. Euthanasia is a form of homicide that is usually done by lethal injection.

Turning off a ventilator with the consent of a competent person may result in a natural death (the person does not always die) but when death occurs it is caused by the person's medical condition.

Everyday doctors "turn off" ventilators with consent. These acts do not constitute euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As for Stephen Hawking, he should re-read the Reuters article to understand how his statement affects other people with disabilities. 

The Reuters article refers to Hawking as "wheelchair bound."

The language of the euthanasia/assisted suicide debate discriminates against people with disabilities and perpetuates negative concepts about living with disabilities. The fact is that Hawkings ideas about "safeguards" are abused in jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal.  Safeguards that are abused cause death and yet no one is ever prosecuted for those deaths.

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is unsafe and needs to be prohibited.

Instead of legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide we need to care for people to eliminate suffering and stop over-treating people who are actually dying and nearing death.

Links to similar articles:
People with disabilities are not disposable.
Palliative care not assisted suicide.
Family receives letter telling them to euthanize autistic boy.

Research article confirms - Belgian euthanasia law is being abused.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director/International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent article written by Raphael Cohen-Almagor and published by the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry on July 13, 2013 and titled: First do no harm: pressing concerns regarding euthanasia in Belgium, examines several problems or abuses of the Belgium euthanasia law.

This is an important article since the Quebec government introduced Bill 52, a bill that will legalize euthanasia in a similar manner to the Belgium euthanasia law.

Cohen-Almagor uncovered several serious problems with the Belgium euthanasia law. 

Cohen-Almagor first outlines the euthanasia law in Belgium and then examines the role of physicians and nurses.

The article points out that physicians have indicated that they lack the training to communicate with the dying in relation to euthanasia. The article states:

“They are also required to consult with other specialists, to spend time and better the communication among all concerned. Physicians found this difficult because they did not receive adequate training”

The article explains that training in palliative care medicine and palliative psychiatry provides those communication skills. The article states:

Indeed, the importance of palliative care as communicating with patients is a core skill of palliative medicine and palliative psychiatry.

The article then examines the role of nurses with euthanasia in Belgium. The article points out that the law specifically states that it is “the physician who performs euthanasia…” 

Cohen-Almagor examines several recent studies and points out that nurses are euthanizing their patients. The article states:

"a recent study shows that 12% of nurses in Flanders administered the drugs, mostly without the physician co-administering (86%)… Another study concerning patients who were euthanized despite not having made an explicit request to die shows that in almost half of these cases (6 of 13) the final drug was given by a nurse."

Cohen-Almagor then states:

“Nurses should not perform acts of ending lives even if physicians explicitly order them to do so. Especially worrying is the high number of incidents where nurses administered lethal drugs to patients who did not explicitly wish to die; this was done mostly without the physician co-administering (82%). One may assume that this was no coincidence and that physicians wished to shift responsibility from themselves, by imposing it on nurses who could not refuse the order.”

The article goes on by examining the fact that physicians in Belgium often fail to recognize when an act of euthanasia is euthanasia. For instance a 2009 study found that only 21% of the physicians correctly labeled intentionally “ending a patient's life at that patient's explicit request, using morphine” as euthanasia.

The article then looks at the requirement in the law that physicians consult an independent specialist. A 2011 study found that 35% of the time a physician did not consult an independent specialist. The study also found that when an independent specialist was consulted, 23% of the time the second physician disagreed with the first physician. The reasons that the physician did not consult a second physician included:

- the doctor didn’t consider it a clear case of euthanasia,  

- it was a case of euthanasia that was outside of the law, 

- because consultation was perceived “too burdensome” and “not useful”, 

- the doctor believed that it was up to the patient and physician alone to decide.

The article then points out that a 2010 study found that in 1/3 of the consultations, the consulting physician was not independent from the attending physician. The article states:

“These answers raise many concerns: physicians did not understand the letter of the law; physicians disagreed with the law and were willing to knowingly violate the law; physicians failed to understand the place and the importance of the law in society. They were taking the law into their own hands when the patient's best interests (privacy, confidentiality, trust between physician and patient) or their own best interest (not filling the burdensome forms) seemed to be more important.”

Cohen-Almagor goes on to examine studies concerning the under-reporting of euthanasia in Belgium. The article states:

Notification of euthanasia to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission is obligatory, yet 82% of all reported cases came from Dutch-speaking physicians while only 18% came from French-speaking physicians. All-together, half of all euthanasia cases were not reported.

The article quotes the European Institute of Bioethics who reported one physician stating:

“You are right to say that many euthanasia cases are not [officially] declared. I myself have practiced euthanasia very many times, and I never declared them. It is too personal and a matter between the patient and his doctor. No need to publicise it”

The article then states:

“Indeed, a cross sectional analysis of reported and unreported euthanasia cases showed that unreported cases were generally dealt with less carefully than reported cases: a written request for euthanasia was more often absent, other physicians and caregivers specializing in palliative care were consulted less often, the life ending act was more often performed with opioids or sedatives, and the drugs were more often administered by a nurse, not a physician as required.”

Cohen-Almagor does not suggest that the Belgian euthanasia law must be reversed; he does state that corrective mechanisms need to be inserted, where applicable. He also wrote:

The Belgian population should be aware of the high level of paternalism among their physicians. One study shows that sixty percent of the surveyed physicians think that they should be able to decide to end the life of a patient who suffers unbearably and is incapable of making decisions.

This research article confirms that the Belgian euthanasia law is being abused. The fact that Belgian physicians are highly paternalistic is another reason for prohibiting euthanasia. 

When dealing with human life or death, what level of abuse, or death without request is considered acceptable? How many lives being taken, outside of the law, are considered too many? 

No person should be given the right or the power, in law, to take the life of another human being.

Euthanasia has proven to be an unsafe societal experiment. 

Society needs to commit itself to caring for every citizen and reject killing its citizens.

Recent articles on this topic:
Quebec euthanasia (Bill 52) is based on the Belgian euthanasia law.
Requests for euthanasia in Belgium are rarely refused.
Quebec euthanasia (Bill 52) is a very dangerous bill.

Nitschke continues to sell suicide over the internet.

Philip Nitschke, is once again promoting the illegal import of veterinary euthanasia drugs in Australia.

Yahoo 7 news in Australia interviewed Nitschke in a manner that almost invited the illegal import of lethal drugs. The interview did state:

"Be careful, because it's illegal." 

The penalty for importing or possessing Nembutal is a prison sentence or a fine of up to $825,000. 

Dr Nitschke says hundreds of Australians have illegally brought the drug into the country over the past couple of years. 

The Australian Federal Police have told the ABC's Lateline program that they have seized almost 15 kilograms of the drug since 2007.

The illegal promotion of veterinary euthanasia drugs by Nitschke is dangerous and reckless. 

A 2010 report from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine researched 51 people who died from Nembutal in Australia. The report found that young people and depressed people were more likely to die by Nembutal than terminally ill people in Australia.

The report stated that of the 51 people who were known to have died from Nembutal, 6 people were in their 20's, 8 people were in their 30's, 5 people were in their 40's, 14 people were in their 50's, 3 people in their 60's, 10 in their 70's, and 5 people were over the age of 80.

Further to that, the report found that of the 38 known deaths that were investigated by a coroner, only 11 had a significant physical illness or chronic pain with the remaining 27 cases showing no signs of physical problems.

The report suggested that the 27 otherwise healthy people who died from Nembutal use were most likely depressed or mentally ill.

In February 2010 Nitschke stated to the Australian Age newspaper, in response to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine report that:

''There will be some casualties … but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well being from having access to this information,'' 

More recently Nitschke has been importing death cannisters under the corporate name - Max Dog Brewing.

The media continues to be irresponsible in their promotion of Nitschke, a man who is not concerned that his promotion of suicide has led to many depressed and mentally ill people have been encouraged to suicide rather than encouraged to receive good, caring medical help.

I am convinced that Nitschke once again went the media to promote his suicide business in response to the fact that he and his Euthanasia Party were electorally trounced in the recent Australian Senate election.

Readers of this who are thinking about suicide contact. Suicide hotline.

Links to similar articles:
Nitschke is importing death cannisters.
Nitschke continues to promote Nembutal over the internet.
Legalizing euthanasia - There will be casualties.

Poll: the majority of doctors oppose assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent online poll conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asking physicians whether they supported assisted suicide found that the majority of doctors oppose assisted suicide. The NEJM poll was published on April 11 and closed on April 24, 2013. 

NEJM reported the results in this way:

Readers from 74 countries cast 2356 unique votes; U.S. readers from 49 states cast 1712 votes. Overall, 65% of the readers thought that physician-assisted suicide should not be permitted; the rate among U.S. voters was similar, with 67% voting against physician-assisted suicide.

It is interesting that the NEJM poll found that 67% of those who participated in the poll opposed physician-assisted suicide considering how the poll was done. The NEJM featured a case study based on a person who was terminally ill, cognitively aware, who had a clear desire to die by assisted suicide.

The NEJM then published two options, one opposing physician-assisted suicide by Margaret Somerville and Dr J Donald Boudreau one supporting physician-assisted suicide by Dr Nicola Biller-Andorno.

The NEJM poll followed the World Medical Association (WMO), who reiterated its opposition to euthanasia. From the WMO Resolution on Euthanasia:

Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.

The WMO also reiterated its opposition to assisted suicide. Their resolution:

Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.

The American Medical Association opposes physician-assisted suicide. The AMA policy states:

It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress--such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness--may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Recently the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) upheld its position opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide at its annual convention. 

A recent poll by the CMA also found that the majority of Canadian doctors oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

A similar survey by the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) that was done in November 2010 found that of the CSPCP members who responded to the survey, overwhelming majority (88%) were opposed to the legalization of euthanasia while (80%) were opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide.

The CSPCP survey also found that (90%) of responding members would not be willing to participate in the act of euthanasia while (83%) of responding members would not be willing to assist a suicide.

Margaret Somerville

The comments by Margaret Somerville and Dr Donald Boudreau are good to reiterate here:

Permitting physician-assisted suicide creates a slippery slope that unavoidably leads to expanded access to assisted suicide interventions — and abuses. Advocates of euthanasia deny that slippery slopes exist, arguing that legal constraints and administrative safeguards are effective in preventing them. But the evidence is clearly to the contrary, as the High Court of Ireland recently affirmed. In upholding the constitutionality of the prohibition on assisted suicide, the justices wrote, “. . . the fact that the number of LAWER (`life-ending acts without explicit request') cases remains strikingly high in jurisdictions which have liberalised their law on assisted suicide . . . speaks for itself as to the risks involved.”2 Vulnerable communities in our societies — persons who are old and frail and those who are disabled or terminally ill — perceive themselves to be threatened.3 Physicians must not be willfully blind to these serious dangers.

Doctors must continue to be healers and carers and never allow themselves to become killers.

Links to other similar articles:
Canadian Medical Association delegates opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Rebranding Killing and Suicide. The ugly truth about Euthanasia.
Most Canadian doctors oppose euthanasia.
The World Medical Association opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide.