Massachusetts assisted suicide bill H 1998 is likely dead.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Assisted Suicide bill H 1998 in Massachusetts appears to be dead.

The Associated Press is reporting that:

On Tuesday the Public Health Committee recommended the bill be sent to a study committee, a common way of essentially ensuring no action will be taken before the end of the formal session.

On November 6, 2012 Massachusetts citizens defeated Ballot Question 2 (assisted suicide) by a vote of 51.1% to 48.9%. A close vote that indicated that the majority of Massachusetts citizens opposed the legalization of assisted suicide.

Yesterday, the media reported that Connecticut assisted suicide bill HB 5326 was likely dead.

On March 12, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King appealed the assisted suicide court decision in New Mexico.

On March 6, the New Hampshire House of Representatives overwhelmingly defeated assisted suicide bill HB 1325.

Congratulations to everyone who worked to defeat the assisted suicide bill in Massachusetts.

Russia to ban child adoption for Belgians.

By Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International Chair

Cheryl Eckstein, the leader of the Compassionate Healthcare Network sent out an important news story from Russia concerning Belgium extending euthanasia to children.

The Voice of Russia reported on March 9, 2014 stated that:

Russian officials have come up with a proposal to ban child adoption by citizens of countries where child euthanasia is permissible.

The report states:

Russian MPs have proposed to put a ban on child adoption by citizens of countries where the euthanasia of underage children is allowed. A lawyer, Larisa Pavlova, the Chairwoman of the board of Directors of the Parents Committee (a public organization) shares the opinion of the Russian MPs. 

“It is high time that we not only make friends but also appreciate the condition of the society we plan to contact with. Therefore, we can say that the society which officially favours murdering of children is unhealthy.”

Russia has decided to protect its citizens from euthanasia. People will often adopt children with disabilities. Russia has made a good decision to protect Russian children from being adopted by citizens of countries that allow euthanasia of children.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_09/Belgium-lifts-ban-on-children-euthanasia-despite-its-nations-pleadings-not-to-2931/

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_09/Belgium-lifts-ban-on-children-euthanasia-despite-its-nations-pleadings-not-to-2931/

Connecticut assisted suicide House Bill 5326 is likely dead.

By Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International Chair

The Record Journal news in Connecticut is reporting that the assisted suicide bill HB 5326 is unlikely to go to a vote this year. Yesterday the Connecticut General Assembly Public Health Committee held a public hearing on HB 5326.

On March 6, 2014, less than two weeks earlier, the New Hampshire legislature defeated assisted suicide bill HB 1325 by a vote of 219 to 66. Connecticut and New Hampshire are both in the northeastern US.

The Record Journal reported Rep. David Zoni, D-Southington, a health committee member stating:

“I don’t see a lot of strong support for it.” 

While Zoni received more than 1,000 emails on the issue, he felt the e-mails from bill opponents appeared less manufactured. Emails in support of the “right to die” had similar wording and identical subject lines, he said.

The Record Journal reported that Rep. Mary Mushinsky, D-Wallingford, who supports assisted suicide, included a question about assisted suicide in a survey sent to constituents Tuesday.

“I’m trying to get a read on the district,” she said. “Some people definitely love it, and some people are afraid of it.” 

Unless there’s a groundswell of support though, she agrees the bill will again probably not come to a vote.

Rep. Al Adinolfi, R-Che­shire, who spoke against the bill during Monday’s public hearing said that he was a certified hospice volunteer and had seen how some families are looking for ailing relatives to die. The Record Journal reported him as saying:

"Allowing suicide as an option could be misused." 

“A person could be convinced what the option is by a selfish family,” Adinolfi said. 

“Medication changes every day,” he said. “We could make a mistake and take a life when we shouldn’t.”

The Hartford Courant reported that the assisted suicide lobby group, Compassion & Choices, has spent out of state money to promote assisted suicide in Connecticut. The article stated:

Connecticut disability rights group: Assisted Suicide - Nothing about us without us.

The following is the speech by Stephen Mendelsohn, a leader of the disability rights group Second Thoughts Connecticut at the Press Conference on Monday March 17.

Link to the Youtube video of the Press Conference.

Movements are known by their mottoes. The civil rights movement sang “We Shall Overcome.” In the disability community, we have our own motto: “Nothing About Us Without Us.” We. Us. Interdependence. Community.

Assisted suicide bill invites elder abuse

The following letter was published on March 18, 2014 by the The Day News - Connecticut.

Nancy Elliott

By Nancy Elliott

I am a former three-term state representative in New Hampshire. Just last week, our House of Representatives voted down an assisted-suicide law similar to Connecticut's Raised Bill No. 5326. The vote was an overwhelming 3 to 1 defeat, 219 to 66.

In New Hampshire, the House is controlled by the Democrats. The vote against assisted suicide was strongly bipartisan and included libertarians. Many representatives, who initially thought that they were for the law, became uncomfortable when they studied it further.

Contrary to promoting "choice" for older people, assisted suicide laws are a prescription for abuse. They empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is no assisted suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.
Do not be deceived.

Nancy Elliott: why euthanasia should be rejected in Quebec. Dr Paul Saba: doctors will leave Quebec if euthanasia is legalized.

The following article was published on March 17 by CTV news.

Nancy Elliott

The provincial election has put the provincial government's euthanasia bill on the back burner, but a a group of doctors wants to remind the public about what it believes are the risks of Bill 52.

Doctors for Social Justice was joined by former state of New Hampshire representative Nancy Elliott to speak about why legislators in her state recently rejected its own assisted suicide bill.

Elliott said there are many similarities between the two proposed acts of legislation.

She said many lawmakers felt there was a risk of increased abuse of seniors, and the disabled as well as the possibility of misdiagnosis leading to medically assisted suicide.

Dr Paul Saba

Dr. Paul Saba, head of Doctors of Social Justice said if the government were to pass the bill physicians would leave Quebec.

"For some doctors who will say no we cannot be accomplices to this, will not practise under those conditions," said Dr. Saba.

Last year the World Medical Association adopted a motion saying physician-assisted suicide is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession.

Link to a similar article published by Sun News.

Former state representative explains why Quebec should follow New Hampshire and reject euthanasia.

On March 16, Nancy Elliott, a former three term New Hampshire state representative and a member of the board of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International, spoke at a press conference in Montréal hosted by the Physicians for Social Justice.

Nancy Elliott

MONTREAL, March 16, 2014 /PRNewswire/ 

Link to the Youtube video. 

New Hampshire overwhelmingly rejected assisted suicide on March 6 2014 with a vote of 219 to 66. Former 3 term state representative Nancy Elliott explained why New Hampshire rejected assisted suicide and why progressive societies like Quebec should reject euthanasia.

There are many similarities between the New Hampshire legislation and Quebec's. Both proposals leave the door wide open for abuse of people in medical facilities. Definitions of eligibility in both Bills are vague and wide open. Medical predictions are not always correct. Many people who are written off outlive their doctors' predictions. There are medical conditions where people are not necessarily dying and may have many more years of life to live with treatment. Ms. Elliott gave the example of Richard Bloom from New Hampshire who was given 18 months to live with pancreatic cancer. Initially he was refused treatment and after battling with his medical providers was able to procure treatment and doing well 9 years later.

Both bills leave the door open for family abuse, particularly those who can gain from an inheritance. Senior abuse in the community has been estimated at 4-6% and is probably higher in institutional care facilities according to the World Health Organization.

In summary Nancy Elliott states that "euthanasia is a prescription for all types of abuse of people at the most vulnerable times of their lives."

Also present at the conference Lisa D'Amico ‎President of Le fonds d'aide aux victimes d'erreurs médicales (FAVEM) who described the need to protect people with disabilities from the abuses of euthanasia. She explained how disabled people like herself contribute to society and are a benefit to their communities. Medical research needs to be done to treat medically challenged people and this contributes to research and development which is an investment to the economy. The payback is better functioning citizens who contribute back to society. She also reminded us that not all people with disabilities are born with them, some develop them later in life, and others may even have accidents even at an early age. All of society has an invested interest to encourage better medical care for our fellow citizens so they can better contribute.

In the Video: "Quebecers call to stop euthanasia," 16 year old Nadine described how she survived leukemia and a bone marrow transplant when she was 14 years ago. She described how young people need love and support to get through and do not need the deadly seduction of euthanasia.

Dr. Sylvia Baribeau, a family physician emphasized the need to treat and support those who need medical care and not abandon them when they need it most. 

"Euthanasia is not medical care, it is the cruelest abandonment and abuse of our fellow human beings."

Dr. Paul Saba who is President of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice reminds us that

"over 9 million doctors in over 100 countries represented by the World Medical Association reject euthanasia and request physicians not to euthanize people in countries or jurisdictions where it is permitted. It also is contrary to United Nations conventions and agreements."

SOURCE Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice

Video with caption: "Quebec Bill 52: New Hampshire rejects assisted suicide bill - Implications for Quebec ".  Link to the youtube video.

The majority of Connecticut residents do not support assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A comprehensive poll on assisted suicide done by the Marist polling firm found that the majority of Connecticut residents do not support assisted suicide and a strong majority of Connecticut residents do not consider assisted suicide bill HB 5326 to be a legislative priority.

The survey of 1000 concerning assisted suicide bill HB 5326 — that would allow doctors to prescribe a fatal dose of drugs to patients who request it and are believed to have a terminal illness was done between March 6 - 9, 2014. The poll  The Joint Committee on Public Health has scheduled a hearing for the bill on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17.

The poll found that assisted suicide runs counter to the majority of Connecticut residents’ views about a doctor’s proper role in end-of-life situations. 

Gov Daniel Malloy

On Friday March 14, the Connecticut Mirror reported Gov. Daniel Malloy stated that:

“I don’t think in society we should be viewed as encouraging suicide.” 

"I then become a little uneasy when it comes to saying that as a matter of state policy, that we're going to take proactive actions to end life."

● 55% believe a doctor should not prescribe or provide life-ending drugs, but instead should manage the illness or be allowed to remove a respirator or other medical interventions so nature can take its course.

● 38% believe a doctor should actively assist in taking a person’s life by prescribing (21%) or administering (17%) fatal doses of drugs.

● 70% see the issue as a low priority or not an issue to be addressed by the governor and state legislature, 

● 65% of residents in the state worry that if the law passes, those without better health insurance could have fewer end-of-life options. 

● 64% worry that the state of mind of a patient may be misjudged since the bill allows doctors who are not mental health professionals to determine the patient’s state of mind. 

● 63% worry that the doctor’s prediction of the course of the disease could be inaccurate, 

● 63% worry that the elderly could be at risk in nursing homes or health care facilities. 

● 58% are concerned that patients who suffer from depression will be more likely to want to take their own lives.

Disability leader comments on Euthanasia Roundtable in Australia

This article was written by Craig Wallace the leader of the disability rights group - Lives Worth Living and published on the Lives Worth Living blog on March 13, 2014.

Craig Wallace

By Craig Wallace - Lives Worth Living

Some reflections on today’s ACT Legislative Assembly Roundtable on Euthanasia

A group of Canberra MLA’s, advocates and people in the aged care and allied health sector today got an insight into the moral, legal and political puzzle that is voluntary euthanasia.

In a useful forum convened by ACT MLA Mary Porter participants heard facts and arguments for and against euthanasia presented by two Queensland academics A/Prof Ben White and Prof Lindy Willmott.

Any legislation on euthanasia in the Territory is in reality a long way off, due to the Andrews Bill which limits the Territory’s powers in this area.

Whatever you might think of the limits on ACT self govt presented by that Bill, what the absence of legislative power does do is open the way for an exploratory discussion which throws all the facts and arguments on the table and sifts through them.

Shining this light was Ms Porters intention and I welcome it. It also makes a refreshing change for disability to be at the ground floor in a discussion on it rather than being on the receiving end of a cobbled together private members bill filled with truck sized holes.

Ask outsiders to characterise the euthanasia debate and they will often label it as emotion charged and driven by opinions and belief systems rather than facts, sometimes pointing a finger at the anti-euthanasia position.

While the majority at the forum clearly supported euthanasia or were undecided, what was interesting was that a relatively dispassionate discussion between like minds threw up a boggling array of unanswered questions, doubts and concerns all by itself.

The forum was not designed to achieve a consensus but an airing of positions. Yet my gut tells me that a significant number of people left the discussion concluding that that the ACT wasn’t ready for legislation on euthanasia and hadn’t done the groundwork anyway. Andrews bill notwithstanding. This was certainly voiced.

Ben and Lindy did a credible job of presenting the arguments for and against and unpacking terms and concepts around euthanasia. It was here, talking about words, concepts and meanings – the light and shade of them - that things got interesting.

Euthanasia: End-of-life care hinges on recognizing and treating pain.

The following article was written by Kristine Berey and published on March 14, 2014 in The Senior Times. The Québec government called an election before voting on euthanasia Bill 52. We expect the euthanasia bill in Québec will be re-introduced after the election.

By Kristine Berey, The Senior Times - March 14, 2014

Margaret Somerville 

If Bill 52, An Act Respecting End of Life Care, becomes law, euthanasia/medical aid to dying will be legal in Quebec.

For social services minister Véronique Hivon, who introduced the bill, the act is humane, ensuring the terminally ill, as informed consenting adults, can make end-of life choices.

She has no patience with the “charged vocabulary” of McGill bioethicist Margaret Somerville, who said that once a society allows “intentional killing … you can’t control it.” Nor does she buy Somerville’s and others’ “slippery slope” argument, claiming she trusts doctors would not abuse the law. She says there are safeguards written into the bill.

“No one wants to be killed or to kill. The person wants to stop suffering,” she said on CBC’s The Current.

On this point, Rose De Angelis, palliative nursing director at the West Island Palliative Care Residence, agrees with Hivon. “The No. 1 reason people ask to die is that they are scared of suffering. Yet we can tell them palliative care has the tools to alleviate nearly all suffering.” The second reason people consider ending their lives, De Angelis says, is that they don’t want to burden their families as their capacities diminish. “We have the beds, they are free and we provide the kind of care that makes life worth living. We have very good pain management, excellent experts.”

But De Angelis vehemently rejects Hivon’s assertion that medical aid to die is an extension of health care.

“Almost all of us are against it,” she says. “It was never part of palliative care—it is not part of our role. We’re the alternative to euthanasia, which is not on a continuum of any medical care.”

Balfour Mount

Balfour Mount, the oncologist who established the first palliative-care ward at the Royal Victoria hospital in 1973 and who coined the term, rejects the idea as well. “We have gone from the goal of improving the quality of the end of life to ending life. I don’t call that medically assisted suicide, I call it euthanasia.” He and De Angelis both made the point that “palliative sedation,” a last-resort tool to keep the dying patient pain-free, is already being used, and an injection to hasten death is not necessary. Mount is battling cancer and heart disease but says he would never ask for a doctor “or anybody else to end my life intentionally. I would far prefer to be asleep consistently until I die, as I described in my paper When Palliative Care Fails to Control Suffering, 20 years ago. The goal isn’t to kill, but to improve quality. It is a palliative goal.”

The bill outlines stringent criteria s to the requesting and administering of euthenasia. But nowhere does it explicitly say that all means to alleviate pain must have been exhausted before a patient makes that decision, however “informed”.

A study published last month by Université de Montréal’s Manon Choinière demonstrated that after the most frequently performed cardiac surgery, patients were left with persistent post-operative pain for two years, suggesting that pain remains under-treated and under recognized in our hospitals.

Mary E. Lynch, past president of the Canadian Pain Society, writes in Pain Research and Management, “Pain is poorly managed in Canada.”

In her 2010 call for a national pain strategy, she cites studies that show rates of suicide increase with pain, and among those at risk to suffer from inadequate pain management are the elderly and the very young.

“Unfortunately, even in the best hospitals in Canada, patients continue to receive inadequate pain control in emergency rooms. … Ninety percent of patients could obtain effective and safe relief of their pain with currently available treatments, yet only 50 per cent gain access to such treatments.”

De Angelis says education is an issue, noting that veterinarians receive far more hours of pain management training (one survey estimates five times more) than physicians.

“End of life care does not cost a lot when used properly,” De Angelis says. “What costs is people showing up in emergency rooms when they’re dying.”

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, also rejects Hivon’s definition of medical aid in dying as being part of health care, and notes that in the Criminal Code, euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. “Quebec calls it health care because it has provincial jurisdiction. Even if it is voted on it will be challenged.”

He also worries it will be extended to those with dementia and others. Recently Yves Robert, the secretary of the Collège des médecins de Québec, told the National Post that in time the question will be not about who is eligible for euthanasia but who is being denied it.

There is no smear campaign against the Belgium euthanasia law – it is just that the truth hurts

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick
Director of EPC Europe and a leader of Not Dead Yet - UK

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

 To smear someone is to tell lies, or to reveal the dark things they do, for personal gain. No one is ‘smearing’ Wim Distelmans - as Prof Vermeersch claims in a Belgian publication. No-one is telling lies – we are telling the truth so people may realise what is really going on under the guise of ‘good, medical practice’ in Belgium. We seek no gain apart from that truth and the suspension of their terrible practice of euthanasia. 

Patients must feel completely safe when they go to doctors for help. It was originally believed that psychiatric, demented or depressed patients would not be targeted by the Belgian law. However, the Belgian Control Commission headed by Distelmans and which never investigates any of the euthanasia deaths reported to it, approves euthanasia in such cases today. (One study found that 47% of the euthanasia deaths are not reported). Tom Mortier’s mother was not ill apart from her depression. She was certainly not dying. But she died by the hands of Distelmans anyway. Just like the tortured transsexual, or the woman who was sexually abused by her treating psychiatrist; both euthanized as a response to their despair. Is this safe?

It is the worst kind of danger – when someone can facilitate your depressed wish to die. And then to have this same man in charge of the commission which is supposed to regulate euthanasia is the most fundamental conflict of interest. How do we know he is telling us everything when his commission has never referred even one reported euthanasia for investigation? Are we to believe there is never any doubt, ever?

Etienne Vermeersch

Vermeersch calls this ‘significant social and ethical progress’. I have a totally different opinion. For me, it is the clearest evidence of how far Belgium has fallen - into the worst moral decline. These people have no questions about their auto-satisfaction. To quote a much better philosopher than Vermeersch:

Philosophers with no suspicion that anything is beyond their professional competence, or may be too deep for their individual talent, ‘mistake [their] vices for the virtue of thinking radically, courageously...’, [and they] have contributed to a drive that feeds an aggressive and now much less self-reflective lobby, who make the same mistake of vice for virtue. (Rai Gaita, 1991)

They do not even stop to ask any more: can euthanasia really be right? In every case? Vermeersch himself stated on November 13, 2013 that ‘a man with no arms and no legs’ was right to want to die and it was his mission to help. He is clear, the euthanasia law in Belgium is for disabled people.

This is reflected in the British euthanasia lobby’s recent move to pretend that disabled people are in favour of legalizing assisted suicide. They used an out-of-date survey that did not even ask a question about euthanasia, and they recruited a disabled ‘patsy’ to front their propaganda. Yet all that work just confirms that the euthanasia lobby are seeking euthanasia in Britain for disabled people; nothing to do with terminal illness at all. So clear, so cynical.

There are so many questions that are being ignored. How, for example, do so many people find themselves in a ‘medically hopeless situation’ in Belgium? Has medicine failed them. Why has social care for disabled people been described as a human rights nightmare in Belgium by the European Social care Committee. Little wonder that people with disabilities are faced with no option at all – and just in case you think so, death is not an option, it is the end of all options.

Do doctors strive to do better medically? I believe most doctors do. But some say instead: 

‘We can do no more for you, so here, let us kill you’. 

The worst part is they call this ‘compassion’. Then they lie about anyone who asks questions or opposes them. They say we are cruel people. We are not cruel people. We are able to think, and we become afraid when these people get hold of us. Who wants to turn up in the emergency room and ask the doctor who might just save our lives ‘Are you a card-carrying member of the Euthanasia Lobby?’

We are simply saying: rather than concentrating on dying, we want dignified living.

For people who are not dying and for the tiny number of people (just 0.75% of all people who die in Belgium every year) who sadly experience refractory symptoms, real care might be deep sedation to allow a peaceful death. Even then there are still important questions, but good palliative care doctors say they can already help these unfortunate few.

Why must we legalize euthanasia at all? 

Laws, by their very nature, must be general – must cover every citizen – and when such laws result in the deaths of children or rebellious teenagers, they must be bad laws. A good and decent society protects its most vulnerable members – it does not simply say ‘Here’s a way to die’.

When someone is standing on a bridge and afraid of their future that they want to jump, only the cruel abandon them by saying ‘Great! Jump!’ or worse, actually push them off. Why then, when someone who is disabled, sick, depressed, or a child, and says ‘I want to die’ – why do we say to them ‘But of course you must die, we’ll even do it for you’? Who is the cruel one?

Belgium certainly is unrivalled in the world - but make no mistake, much of the world is horrified by how quickly and easily Belgians have slipped into this moral depth, where some people gleefully praise themselves for valuing death far more than life. How many more must be killed out of this twisted argument.

Assisted Dying will turn into a lethal weapon

The following article was written by The Times columnist, Tim Montgomerie, and published in The Times UK on March 13, 2014.

Tim Montgomerie

By Tim Mongomerie

The public backs euthanasia. But before we empower doctors to kill we should understand where it might lead.

Some readers of this newspaper could hardly be more selfish and I’m drawing up a little list of those of you who are becoming an intolerable burden on taxpayers and your families.

Top of that list are those of you exhibiting early signs of dementia. In the not too distant future you’ll be draining about £30,000 every year from the economy once the cost of your prescriptions and care are totted up. And, frankly, there are already enough of you now but there’ll be a million more by 2050. That’s a lot of overcrowding in hospital wards. Haven’t you read about the nation’s debt crisis?

And there’s those of you who are frankly a bit past it. You’re living in an expensive house and your indebted kids are struggling to pay the bills. Come on, you’ve had a good innings. Time to declare, pass your life savings to your grandchildren — before you squander it all on home helps and stair lifts.

And what about you in the corner with chronic depression? Time to give up and donate your healthy organs to someone in desperate need of them. And don’t get me started on the cost of looking after those of you with physical disabilities.

Let’s introduce euthanasia in Britain — a safe, legal system for allowing people to exit life. I suggest that we organise parties to celebrate the departure moments. Remember the film Logan’s Run, in which everyone is terminated in a quasi-religious ceremony after an allocation of three decades of hedonistic living? We won’t have such a cut-off age (not yet, anyway) but we should have proper parties in which your friends and family celebrate your life . . . and then mark your ending of it.

Connecticut Governor Malloy is unlikely to support assisted suicide bill HB 5326,

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gov. Daniel Malloy

The New Haven Register reported today that Connecticut Gov. Daniel Malloy opposes assisted suicide. The Connecticut House is debating assisted suicide bill HB 5326, a bill that will have public hearings in the Public Health Committee on Monday March 17.

On March 6 the New Hampshire House defeated the assisted suicide bill HB 1325 by a vote of 219 to 66.

The New Haven Register reported that:

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy leaned Wednesday away from legislation allowing a doctor to prescribe lethal medication to a dying patient in favor of a policy giving patients broader rights to refuse treatment.  

“It’s a very tricky issue,” the governor said at an unrelated press conference when he was asked about a policy, which has been labeled “aid-in-dying” by supporters and “assisted suicide” by critics.

Malloy then explained that he supports a bill that provides clarity on advanced directives. The article stated:

The governor endorsed another piece of legislation which would create a pilot program on “medical orders for life sustaining treatment.” The idea is similar to “do not resuscitate” orders, which are already in use in Connecticut. It would give seriously ill patients the option of creating directives indicating they want to refuse life-sustaining treatments. 

“I support that legislation and I think people in Connecticut overwhelmingly support that legislation,” Malloy said.

When asked if he would support the assisted suicide bill he said:

“If it’s more like the directive bill as opposed to an assisted suicide bill, then I think it will pass. If it’s an assisted suicide bill, I think it’s going to get some opposition,” he said. “I’ll work with folks to craft the best bill possible that will yield the citizens of our state the most say over their treatment, and what treatment would be undertaken to prolong life and what treatments under what conditions would not take place.”

The Connecticut Mirror reported Gov Malloy stating on Friday March 14 that:

“I don’t think in society we should be viewed as encouraging suicide. I would have to understand what the safeguards are with respect to that. A lot of what I’ll say and do in the future about that issue is dependent on the language I’ve been presented.” 

"I then become a little uneasy when it comes to saying that as a matter of state policy, that we're going to take proactive actions to end life."

New Mexico Attorney General appeals assisted suicide lower court decision

By Alex Schadenberg

Gary King

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International Chair

Today we learned that Gary King, the New Mexico Attorney General, appealed the activist lower court decision that undermined protections for New Mexico citizens from assisted suicide by finding a right to assisted suicide in the New Mexico State Constitution.

On January 13, 2014 Judge Nan Nash, of the Second Judicial District in New Mexico legislated from the bench by allowing New Mexico doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to assist the suicide deaths of their patients in the case Morris v New Mexico.

The Albuquerque Journal reported that:

Nash found that the right exists under the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits the state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due process.

Morris v. New Mexico, which was heard December 12 - 13, 2013, should have been dismissed. 

The case claimed that "aid in dying", which is also known as assisted suicide, is not prohibited by the New Mexico assisted suicide law because "aid in dying" is not assisted suicide.

The case then argued, that if "aid in dying" is assisted suicide, then the New Mexico assisted suicide law is unconstitutional because it undermines the right to privacy and autonomy.

But "aid in dying" is assisted suicide and assisted suicide does not constitute medical treatment. Therefore prohibiting assisted suicide does not undermine the right to privacy or autonomy.

The Albuquerque Journal reported on March 13 that Attorney General King was concerned with the integrity of the law. The article reported King to have said:

“Our position is we’re defending the integrity of the statute. If people are interested in changing state law, they should propose new legislation."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is pleased that Attorney General, Gary King, appealed the activist decision by Judge Nan Nash. We hope that the higher court will overturn this decision.
EPC thanks all of the people who contacted Gary King, by email, phone and through the online petition.

Euthanasia of Newborns: Under the microscope.

This article is based on an article by Dr Felipe Vizcarrondo that was published on March 4, 2014 by Mercatornet.

The first part of this article examines the traditional definition and history of euthanasia. The article then states:

The current concept of euthanasia is based on the utilitarian worldview; the main principle is individual autonomy. The value of the individual is defined in terms of quality of life and contribution to society. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia provided for a competent person with his informed consent. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia performed without the person’s consent.

The article then examines Euthanasia in the Netherlands. The article states:

In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have been legal since 2002. However, the courts had failed to exercise judgment on both these practices since 1984. This unofficial permission by the courts led to their widespread use by the medical community and eventually acceptance by the public. 

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is defined as the intentional termination of the life of a patient by an individual other than the patient at the patient’s request. This definition requires active termination of the life of the patient and voluntary request by the patient.(1) Involuntary euthanasia is also practiced widely.  Frequently it is the Dutch physician who decides who lives and who dies. (2)

In the 1990s, end of life issues for neonates and infants became a concern for the Dutch pediatric community. A nationwide survey (3) in 1995 showed that of 1041 deaths of children within the first year after birth, 62 percent of deaths were preceded by an end of life decision; in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) the frequency was 87 percent. End of life decisions were: to forego life sustaining treatment in 57 percent; to administer potentially life shortening drugs to treat the pain and suffering in 23 percent; and to give a drug to hasten death in 8 percent. 

A drug was given to cause death in 1 percent (15-20 cases) of neonates who were not on life-sustaining treatment. The motives for this act were no chance of survival in 76 percent of cases, and poor prognosis if remained alive in 18 percent. 

A repeat survey (4) that included the years 1995 to 2001 showed similar results, with 68 percent of deaths preceded by end of life decisions. Most of the decisions were to withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment. 

Deliberate ending of life of babies remained at 1 percent, or 15-20 cases yearly. An average of only 3 cases/year of neonatal euthanasia had been reported to the authorities. Obviously, most were not being reported.

The article then examines the Groningen Protocol

Euthanasia leader challenges, disability rights leader, Catherine Frazee, concerning euthanasia.

Catherine Frazee

Dr Rob Jonquiére, the communications director for the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, challenged the position of Catherine Frazee in her recent article opposing euthanasia.

Dr Jonquiére appears to be very proud of the work he did instituting the euthanasia law in the Netherlands. He is convinced that all is well with euthanasia in the Netherlands. But does he have an objective ear?

Dr Jonquiére states that decisions concerning euthanasia: 

must defined from a - subjective - peronal point of view. 

This means that a person who is at a low point in their life, and considers their life to have lost meaning, would qualify for euthanasia. This belief is not a "freedom to choose death" but rather an abandonment of a person when they are in need of human support.

Jonquiére stated that: 

an inborn loathing with any doctor for termination of life of one of his patients have shown to be the major reason for careful implementation of the Dutch Law since its start in 2002.

I agree that doctors, and people in general, have an inborn loathing for termination of life but inborn loathing, or as some call it, human nature, has a way of weakening its natural inclinations when a person consistently contravenes what is inborn. 

This may be why in the Netherlands: 

● 45 psychiatric assisted deaths occurred in 2013. 

● Dr Jonquiére's friend, psychiatrist Dr Boudewijn Chabot recently stated that the Netherlands euthanasia law has derailed. 

● The 2012 Netherlands euthanasia statistics showed that there were 13% more reported euthanasia deaths in 2012. The number of reported assisted deaths were 4188 in 2012, up from 1923 in 2006. 

● The number of unreported assisted deaths increased from 20% in 2005 to 23% in 2010. Studies from Belgium prove that doctors who abuse the law often do not report the death.  

● a healthy woman who was becoming blind recently died by euthanasia. Jonquiére must not have considered this case when stating that Frazee's fear of societal detriment has not occurred in the Netherlands. 

Jonquiére also ignores the Groningen Protocol that allows euthanasia for newborns with disabilities. He may suggest that this is to eliminate human suffering, when in fact it simply eliminates the human.

Dr Jonquiére's response to Catherine Frazee's article opposing euthanasia.

Québec's euthanasia bill 52: a time for reflection.

The following article was written by Catherine Frazee and published on March 4, 2014 as a special to the Montréal Gazette. Catherine Frazee is a former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, an emeritus professor in the school of  disability studies at Ryerson University and an intellectual giant of our time.

Catherine Frazee

By Catherine Frazee

With Quebec’s Bill 52 now stuck in legislative limbo because of an election call, perhaps there is time for us to listen closely to the overtones that are lingering from so much talk of “aid in dying.”

Resonating darkly from the fading debate is one idea about dying — not the only idea, but one that has gripped us firmly. It is the idea of dying as relentless decline, a ruthless assault upon the selves we once were. In the shadow of this idea, greater fear is provoked by dying than by death itself. Little wonder that “aid in dying” offers to forgo the dying process, advancing directly to death.

Perhaps we have chosen this particular idea about dying because of certain “habits of the heart” — certain reflexive assumptions about dignity and autonomy. And perhaps those convictions warrant an honest reconsideration.

Is human dignity truly bound up with the mechanics of personal hygiene? Or is dignity more about the intricate chemistry of how we are held in care and regard by those who stand near?

Is autonomy really the blunt “carte blanche” of individual will? Or is it the pulsing engine of the warrior’s heart, hell-bent on its defence of a vital, expressive, even if diminishing, self?

The alternative idea of dignity and autonomy is what people with long-standing disabilities can be heard saying, if and when courts and media pause to listen.

The debilitations of disability, shame and stigma are layered like paint upon the canvases of our lives. Unlike the chorus of esteem that elevates certain embodied states, however frightful — birthing comes to mind — a drone of pity and repugnance compels a retreat from disability.

Yet Canadians with disabilities hold fast to an account of our lives as utterly dignified and richly interdependent. From the largest and most representative organizations giving political voice to disabled citizens and our families have come persistent and dire warnings that when we permit in the name of dignity the killing of some persons, we set in motion an irreversible unravelling of our delicate social fabric.

Canadian government is committed to increasing palliative care training.

By Alex Schadenberg 
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Pallium Foundation of Canada on March 8 received the first instalment of a 3 year commitment from the federal government of 3 million dollars per year for palliative care training in Canada. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) supports the goals of the Pallium Foundation as essential to building greater access to excellent palliative care in Canada.

Hon Rona Ambrose

The Hon Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health stated:

"Our Government understands the very difficult challenges faced by Canadian families when they are caring for loved ones who need palliative care. This federal support will equip more front-line care providers with the knowledge they need to deliver quality palliative care, in a range of settings, so patients can receive the on-going care they need and deserve. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories, as well as groups like the Pallium Foundation of Canada to ensure that Canadians receive the compassionate care they need."

Kathryn Downer National Director of the Pallium Foundation of Canada stated:

"It is essential that palliative and end-of-life care education be standardized and accessible for all health care providers to increase capacity and to promote a consistent level of quality palliative care throughout Canada"

Dr. Jose Pereira

Dr. Jose Pereira Scientific Director of the Pallium Foundation of Canada stated:

"This funding will go a long way to improve the quality of hospice and palliative care in Canada."

EPC urges the federal government commitment to the Pallium Foundation to continue and increase over the next few years.

Links to similar articles:
Balfour Mount, The father of palliative care, slams Québec's euthanasia bill.
Palliative care specialists in Australia and New Zealand reject euthanasia.
Palliative care leaders reject Québec euthanasia bill.
Canada's Health Minister says no to euthanasia and assisted suicide.