Follow the Money: Oregon pays for assisted suicide but not suicide prevention for adults.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Wesley Smith

Bioethicist, lawyer and cultural commentator, Wesley Smith, examines the Oregon policy of paying for assisted suicide in an article that was published, today, in the Weekly Standard.

In his article, Smith first comments on the celebration of Brittany Maynard's death, that became a massive campaign by the assisted suicide lobby, as compared to the near silence surrounding the life and death of Lauren Hill, who had the same condition but choose to live, continue to play basketball on her college team and raise money to fight cancer.

Smith examines the policies that have led to 859 Oregonians dying by assisted suicide, a state that also has the second highest "other suicide" rate that is 41% higher than the national average. Smith states:

A government’s priorities dictate its spending choices. Oregon uses federal and state money for youth suicide prevention. But even though one in five suicides in Oregon occurs among “older adults,” the anti-assisted-suicide Physicians for Compassionate Care found that the Oregon Health Authority does not fund adult suicide prevention services. As an OHA bureaucrat responded when answering an inquiry from a state legislator, “Staff resources to work on older adult suicide development have not been developed in OHA.” 

In contrast, Oregon does fund assisted suicides under Medicaid, using state funds (federal Medicaid dollars cannot legally pay for assisted suicide). So Oregon taxpayers pay the costs of terminally ill adults seeking death, but no state funds are dispensed to prevent adults from killing themselves. 

Not only that, but Medicaid is explicitly rationed under Oregon law. As one example, some poor patients with late-stage cancer are denied life-extending (as opposed to curative) chemotherapies, but assisted suicide is never rationed. Indeed, readers might recall that Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup​—​two terminally ill cancer patients​—​were denied Medicaid coverage for chemotherapy in 2008, but told in their rejection letters that the state would fund their suicides.

In fact, the Oregon Health Authority has explicitly stated that assisted suicide is "covered" for the poor. Smith quotes:

It is the intent of the Commission that services under [the Oregon Death with Dignity Act] be covered for those that wish to avail themselves to those serv­ices. Such services include but are not limited to attending physician visits, consulting physician confirmation, mental health evaluation and counseling, and prescription medications.

As Smith says, the message is obvious:

No poor Oregonian will ever be rationed out of assisted suicide​—​after all, what “end of life treatment” could be more cost effective? The message is unequivocal: The state will always pay the tab of the poor wanting to kill themselves, but will not necessarily pay for their fight to remain alive.

Smith concludes his article by re-stating Oregon's spending priorities:

Asked about Oregon’s funding priorities, oncologist Dr. Kenneth Stevens, president of Physicians for Compassionate Care, lamented, “You would think with the concern about the state’s high geriatric suicide rate and the similar crisis among military veterans, the state would fund suicide prevention for adults and the elderly.” 

That would be true in an anti-suicide culture. But that isn’t Oregon. By following the money, we can see what the state cares most about: facilitating some​—​rather than preventing all​—​adult suicides.

The Oregon suicide rate has experienced a steady increase since 2000 and last year alone, Oregon assisted suicide rate increased by 44%.

• Oregon's suicide rate continues to increase faster than the national average.
• Assisted suicide and the suicide contagion effect.
• Assisted suicide increased by 44% in Oregon - 2014 assisted suicide report.

Belgian newspaper defends death doctor - Wim Distelmans

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International

We reported recently about the excellent expose written by Rachel Aviv and published in the prestigeous The New Yorker journal.

Written around the story of Tom Mortier and the euthanasia death of his mother who was not ill but, rather living with depression, Aviv adds skillfully the details and comments from two other Belgians who also lost mothers to euthanasia in similar circumstances to Mortier.

The New Yorker does not engage in 'click bait' cheap journalism. Moreover, with such a detailed article on such a sensitive subject, their 'fact checking unit' will surely have examined Aviv's offering thoroughly before publication. That in itself is reason enough to consider the article in full - even if the reader is unsure or supportive of euthanasia in theory.

The truth, as Aviv uncovers, is that theory and practice in Belgium are miles apart. Any wonder that the expose on the main characters involved in these euthanasia deaths has touched a raw nerve. Never fear: the Dutch-language Belgian newspaper, De Morgen, has jumped to the defence!

Professor Tom Mortier

De Morgen gives voice to the two medicos involved in the three deaths; Wim Distelmans in two cases and neurologist, Peter De Deyn. Both are dismissive of The New Yorker report but neither offer anything more than oblique criticism and, interestingly, neither mention Tom Mortier and the death of his mother.

Consider also that both cases involving Distelmans have been the subject of official complaints; so subjudicy is not the consideration here.

De Deyn accuses his complainant of seeking notoriety; Distelmans accuses the journalist of sensationalism and that's about it.

The most telling comment comes from Distelmans: "Choosing euthanasia is a fundamental human right" he tells De Morgen. This not only casts Distelmans et al falsely as champions of human rights, it also explains to anyone who takes a moment to think about it, why euthanasia in Belgium is now a free for all.

If it is a 'fundamental human right', then who can argue with any supposed exercise of personal autonomy, regardless of the human suffering transferred to other family members such as Tom, his wife and children? If it is a 'fundamental human right' what possible reason could anyone offer to limit its application?

Tom Mortier's mother.

Make no mistake, De Morgen's apologia points clearly to the fact that The New Yorker article has pricked the soft and sensitive underbelly of this dark, macabre practice.

In a reply also published in De Morgen, Professor of Ethics at Antwerpen, Willem Lemmens, says that Aviv and The New Yorker have done the Belgian people a favour in 'holding up a mirror' to their euthanasia practice, implicitly suggesting that Belgians should not be afraid to be self-critical; to self-reflect.

But not so those medicos who are wedded to the project. Of them Lemmens is most critical when he lists their stock responses to criticism (google translate):

"Physicians who are in favor of euthanasia minimize the stories. It would go to a negligible minority. Legal and clinically speaking, there is nothing even missed. Their patients were suffering unbearable. There was no prospect of a cure. She wanted to die. The doctors themselves proceed very carefully. They always do that anyway. The children who have the courage to testify about something as intimate as the death of their mother, be suspicious here and there made ​​as psychologically unstable. These are serious allegations, which there is no indication. Moreover it reflects a pervasive lack of empathy. Strange for doctors who see euthanasia as an act of compassion. The story of Tom, Margot, Kerstin should encourage reflection."

This reflection is sorely needed, as Michael Brendan Dougherty observed in The Week:

"Belgium's humanism is inventive at coming up with reasons to die — anorexia and chronic fatigue among them — but what it needs is a reason to live, today and in the future."

• Belgium euthanasia: "Treatment" for depresssion.
• More than 1000 Belgian deaths were hastened without explicit consent in 2013.
• A plea from the son of euthanised Belgian woman.

Canadian government needs more time to respond to Supreme Court assisted suicide decision.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On February 6, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's assisted suicide law giving Canada's parliament 12 months to fill the legislative void.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) responded to the Supreme Court decision by explaining how the decision was irresponsible and dangerous to Canadians. We urged our supporters to lobby the Justice Minister and the government to Give us time by establishing a committee to examine the issues and by using the notwithstanding clause to gain the necessary time to bring forth a law to protect Canadians.

Currently EPC has distributed more than 160,000 Give us time! postcards on the issue.

Justice Minister Hon Peter MacKay, who is not running in the fall election, has acknowledged that the government "needs more time" to legislate on assisted suicide. The Canadian Press reported:

The federal government will need more time to deal with the Supreme Court's decision on doctor-assisted death, and asking for an extension would be a perfectly reasonable request, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday. 

MacKay, who is not seeking re-election this October, said he suspects it is "very likely" the government — be it Conservative or otherwise — will need more time to address the decision, which came down in February. 

In finding that Canada's prohibition on physician-assisted suicide was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the high court gave Parliament one year to deal with the issue in legislation. 

MacKay said there is "no guarantee" the court would be willing to grant an extension, but he said it would be a "reasonable request." He also insisted the next government would address the issue because of the legal void it creates. 

"To do otherwise, I think, would be dangerous and irresponsible,"

According to the Globe and Mail MacKay said that a legal void on assisted suicide is "dangerous and irresponsible." MacKay said:

It “leaves a lot of people vulnerable, particularly persons with disability, persons with advanced Alzheimer’s.”

Toronto Human Rights Lawyer, Hugh Scher, who also acts as legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told advocate daily that: 

“It’s completely understandable in light of the present election season that it would be very difficult – if not impossible – to craft an appropriate regime that responds to the Supreme Court’s directives relative to questions about euthanasia or assisted suicide,” 

The failure to provide sufficient time to craft an appropriate response to the court ruling would otherwise leave a legislative vacuum that would basically allow assisted suicide on demand without any modicum of safeguards or regulations that would protect vulnerable people from the risk of serious abuse or otherwise prevent the serious risks of harm that have been seen in some other jurisdictions.

Hugh Scher

MacKay also stated that the Canadian government will establish a committee to examine the assisted suicide very soon. Scher also stated to advocate daily that:

It seems to me the federal government is intent to take action on this item, which would be in-keeping with both the ruling of the court but also the concerns and interests of Canadians across the country, 

I think realistically, the notion that the government should be prepared to enact legislation by judicial decree in the context of the legislature breaking for an election is unreasonable

The Canadian Medical Association responded by stating.

Wesley Smith: France debates slow euthanasia.

This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on June 16, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Sigh. If the euthanasia pushers can’t get people dead one way, they try another.

The French Senate is debating legalizing terminal sedation for the terminally ill who want it. From the Yahoo story:

France’s debate over end-of-life care goes to the Senate, with a bill that would allow doctors to keep terminally ill patients sedated until death comes, but stops short of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Euthanasia is currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, and recent polls show a large majority of French people favor legalization. But French lawmakers haven’t been willing to go quite that far, in a debate that is arising at the same time as the wrenching family dispute surrounding Vincent Lambert, a Frenchman in a coma since a car accident seven years ago.

But terminal sedation is “that far,” just via a slower process than lethal injection, as this part of the story makes clear:

The new bill would give people “the right to deep, continuous sedation until death.” Some doctors say it can mean patients are sedated for weeks, and that euthanasia may be more humane.

That’s killing by slow motion because it involves putting a patient into a coma and depriving them of food and fluids so they dehydrate to death.

Pushing terminal sedation is egregious for another reason: It confuses people as to whether the legitimate pain controlling technique–palliative sedation–is killing by another name.

It isn’t. And these are important distinctions:

• Palliative sedation is only applied if necessary to alleviate suffering, which is rare.
• Terminal sedation is applied even if unconsciousness is not needed to alleviate suffering.
• The purpose of palliative sedation is to relieve suffering.
• In terminal sedation, the point is to end life.
• In palliative sedation, death is caused by the disease or injury.
• In terminal sedation, death is usually by dehydration or starvation.
• In palliative sedation, the level of consciousness may vary, with focus on allowing as much awareness as possible.
• In terminal sedation, the patient is rendered unconscious.

Here is a link to a more extended article I wrote distinguishing the unethical terminal sedation, from the wholly ethical palliative sedation.

Also, readers may recall that the UK’s Liverpool Care Pathway descended into this kind of back door euthanasia.

This is another example of euthanasia’s corrupting impact. Advocates constantly blur crucial moral distinctions and redefine terms toward the end of opening the door to–or expanding categories for–medicalized killing.

Killing by any other name would smell as fetid.

• Deep sedation: France is in danger of buying a deadly illusion.
• The proper use of palliative sedation is not euthanasia.

Maine Senate defeats assisted suicide bill

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Maine Senate defeated assisted suicide bill LD 1270 by a vote of 18 - 17. LD 1270, would have legalized assisted suicide based on the Vermont assisted suicide law.

LD 1270 was defeated in the Senate on June 15 and brought back to be defeated again on June 16, by the same vote.

The bill was also defeated (7 - 6) in the Maine Health and Human Services Committee which held hearings on May 15.

Disability Rights Maine, the American Nurses Association Maine, the Maine Medical Association, the Maine Hospice Council, the Maine Right to Life, the American Cancer Society Action Network, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland the Maine Osteopathic Association, were among the many groups to oppose the assisted suicide bill.

Diane Coleman, from the disability rights group - Not Dead Yet, recently published an article: Why disability rights advocates oppose assisted suicide.

With the defeat of Bill LD 1270, Maine can not reconsider legalizing assisted suicide for the rest of this two year legislative session.

Belgian doctors are killing patients by euthanasia without request.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Journal of Medical Ethics published a research article written by Raphael Cohen-Almagor, a human rights activist and Chair of the Politics department at the University of Hull.

The article: First do no harm intentional shortening lives of patients without their explicit request in Belgium focuses on published data concerning the practise of causing death without patient request in Belgium and it also focuses on the policy of the Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine Council concerning the administration of sedative agents with the direct intention of shortening life.

Cohen-Almagor examines the Belgian research from the years 1998, 2001, 2007 and 2013. Whereas a basic examination of the research would suggest that the percentage of hastened deaths without explicit request has lowered, the reality indicates that the practise remains common resulting in over 1000 hastened deaths without request each year.

For instance, in 1998, 4 years before euthanasia was legalised in Belgium, research indicates that 3.2% of all deaths were hastened without request while a similar studies in 2007 found that 1.8% of all deaths and in 2013 - 1.7% of all deaths were hastened without explicit.

In December 2012 I published my book - Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, that examined much of this data, even though Cohen-Almagor also examines newer data.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

A review of the research by Steve Dougherty of the Daily Mail UK reported that:

Thousands of elderly people have been killed by their own GPs without ever asking to die under Belgium’s euthanasia laws, an academic report said yesterday. 

It said that around one in every 60 deaths of a patient under GP care involves someone who has not requested euthanasia. 

Half of the patients killed without giving their consent were over the age of 80, the study found, and two thirds of them were in hospital and were not suffering from a terminal disease such as cancer. 

In about four out of five of the cases, the death was not discussed with patients subjected to ‘involuntary euthanasia’ because they were either in a coma, they were diagnosed with dementia, or because doctors decided it would not be in their best interests to discuss the matter with them. 

Very often doctors would not inform the families of plans to lethally inject a relation because they considered it a medical decision to be made by themselves alone, the report published by the Journal of Medical Ethics said.

The Daily Mail article continued:

Report author Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor of Hull University said: ‘The decision as to which life is no longer worth living is not in the hands of the patient but in the hands of the doctor.’ 

‘It should also be noted that deliberately ending the lives of patients without their request is taking place in Belgium more than in all other countries that document such practices, including the Netherlands. 

‘It is worrying that some physicians take upon themselves the responsibility to deliberately shorten patients’ lives without a clear indication from the patients that this is what they would want.’

The data also indicates that deaths that were hastened without request were rarely reported even though reporting is a requirement of the Belgian euthanasia law.

To eliminate confusion for the readers Cohen-Almagor pointed out that the Belgian euthanasia law does not apply to: 

"non-competent patients and it does not allow the deliberate shortening of their lives."

Similar research from the Netherlands indicates that there is a lesser, but equally concerning problem with deaths of people without explicit request in that country.

When accessing the data from several sources, Cohen-Almagor clearly shows that Belgium euthanasia is not limited to people who request it, and it is not limited to people who are competent.

The concept of euthanasia based on "choice" is often an illusion.

Legalizing euthanasia is bad public policy and it is not safe.

Belgium euthanasia: "Treatment" for Depression.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A poignant and thorough article has been written by Rachel Aviv and published in the New Yorker magazine titled: The Death Treatment concerning the euthanasia death of Godelieva De Troyer, a healthy Belgian woman who was living with depression.

Euthanasia is sold to the public as way to escape a horrible death. The euthanasia lobby feeds the media with a series of stories of people, who are "terminally ill" and "suffering" and yet euthanasia is not limited to these people, it includes people with depression.

Tom Mortier, De Troyer's son, responded to the euthanasia death of his healthy depressed mother by seeking answers. The New Yorker magazine has produced this indepth article in response.

The article begins by oulining, from De Troyer's diary, that she was being treated for depression since she was 19. She had good days and she had bad days. Many life experiences gave rise to her depression. She divorced early in her marriage, her past husband committed suicide, she had pain from her childhood and more.

She also experienced happiness, from the article:

The happiest time in Godelieva’s life began when she was in her early fifties and had a new boyfriend. She felt as if she had finally moved beyond the dramas of her childhood, an achievement for which she credited her new psychiatrist. “He opens the wound completely, cleans it thoroughly and closes it so it can heal,” she wrote to a friend. Godelieva, who had blond hair and a wistful smile, made many friends during these years. “She was the most beautiful woman,” Tom told me. “People would say to me, ‘Oh, I could fall in love with your mother.’ ” Christiane Geuens, a close friend, said, “People always wanted to know her. When she walked into a room, everyone knew.” 

Godelieva was delighted when Tom and his wife had a child, in 2005. She promised that she would make up for her failures as a mother by being an attentive grandmother. In photographs, she is physically affectionate with Tom’s daughter, holding her as she brushes her teeth, or sitting on the bed with her, braiding her hair.

Her life went into turmoil.

Then, in 2010, her boyfriend broke up with her, and she felt black again. She stopped wearing makeup and doing her hair, and she cancelled dates with friends, she said, because she felt ugly and old. She felt that she had lost... a sense that there is something to live for. Tom was only thirty minutes away, but she no longer had the energy to drive to his house. She accused Tom of being insufficiently sympathetic, and Tom, who had just had a second child, blamed her for abandoning him and his family. After several months of fights, they stopped speaking. In her diary, she wrote, “I don’t think there can be fruitful contact with the children with all his aggression toward me.” Tom’s sister, a lawyer who does human-rights work in Africa, also avoided her; she found it too painful to be sucked back into her mother’s depression, which had dominated her childhood. ...

 The story looks at her relationship with Dr Wim Distelman and the euthanasia clinic.

In the summer of 2011, when she was sixty-three, Godelieva met a new doctor. She attended a lecture by Wim Distelmans, an oncologist and a professor of palliative medicine at the Free University of Brussels. Distelmans was one of the leading proponents of a 2002 law in Belgium that permits euthanasia for patients who have an incurable illness that causes them unbearable physical or mental suffering. Since then, he has euthanized more than a hundred patients. Distelmans, who wears leather coats and boots and artfully tossed scarves, has become a celebrity in Belgium for promoting a dignified death as a human right, a “tremendous liberation,” and he gives talks at cultural centers, hospitals, and schools around the country. 

In September, 2011, Godelieva saw Distelmans at his clinic. Four months later, she sent an e-mail to her children: “I have filed a euthanasia request with Prof. Distelmans based on psychological distress. I have gone through the entire procedure and am now waiting for the result.”

Tom reacted to his mother's email by seeking advice.

Tom and his wife had just had their third child. They both taught chemistry at Leuven University College, part of the oldest university in Belgium. When Tom received his mother’s e-mail, he showed it to his supervisor, Lies Verdonck, a doctor who was familiar with Distelmans’s work, and asked her what to do. She said there was no way that Distelmans would approve the euthanasia request without first speaking with the patient’s family. “Stay focussed on your job and your children,” she urged Tom.

But the advice was wrong, De Troyer died by euthanasia on April 19, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, three months after Godelieva sent the e-mail, Tom received a short letter from his mother that was written in the past tense. She reported that her euthanasia had been carried out on April 19th, at the university hospital of the Free University of Brussels. “I donated my body to science,” she wrote. On the back of the letter, she’d left the phone number of a friend who had the keys to her house. 

Tom immediately drove to the house of the friend, who offered him a drink and then explained that she and her husband had driven Godelieva to the hospital. Tom accused the couple of coöperating with a suicide. They were defensive: they said that it was Godelieva’s choice, and they didn’t want her to have to take a taxi to the hospital alone. Later, they admitted to Tom that in the car Godelieva was chatting and laughing, and they had begun to wonder if they knew her as well as they’d thought.

Tom went to his mother's house.

In his mother’s living room, Tom found an article about Distelmans in De Morgen, a leading Flemish newspaper, which featured a large photograph of him sitting on a bed, wearing jeans, a patterned shirt, and a silver bangle bracelet. The reporter described Distelmans as a doctor who “cannot stand injustice.” Distelmans spoke about his disdain for doctors who assume that they know what their patients need, and told the reporter that the “euthanasia law has such a symbolic value. People have a voice.” 

Tom also discovered a booklet, produced by LEIF (Life End Information Forum), an organization founded by Distelmans, that outlined the medical and legal options available to people who are dying or want to die. On the final page, the authors introduced an excerpt from “Utopia,” by Thomas More, who describes a world in which “officially sanctioned euthanasia is regarded as an honorable death.” In More’s ideal society, government officials and priests visit suffering invalids and say, “Why don’t you break out and escape to a better world?”

The article continues by interviewing Wim Distelmans, Jan Bernheim and other euthanasia doctors. It is clear that the euthanasia philosophy is about ending the life of people based on "human happiness." The expansion of the "accepted" reasons for euthanasia and the expansion in the number of euthanasia deaths is concerning. What began as an exception has become the societal norm.

Last year, thirteen per cent of the Belgians who were euthanized did not have a terminal condition, and roughly three per cent suffered from psychiatric disorders. In Flanders, where the dominant language is Dutch, euthanasia accounts for nearly five per cent of all deaths. (The percentage is lower in the southern, French-speaking parts of Belgium.) The Flemish media have adopted a mostly uncritical approach to euthanasia, running numerous articles about the courage of people who have chosen to die.

Brussels - November 2013

In November 2013, I had the opportunity to debate Jan Bernheim, one of the pioneers of the euthanasia lobby in Belgium. Bernheim spoke about euthanasia as eliminating human suffering. 

I explained how the euthanasia law has expanded and has been abused. The data indicates that nearly half of the assisted deaths are not reported, that 1.7% of all deaths are hastened without request, how nurses are doing euthanasia, even though that is against the law, and more.

Bernheim responded by saying: "there are problems with the Belgian euthanasia law" in which I responded: "that is cold comfort for the dead."

New Zealand the assisted suicide debate changes venues.

This article was published on June 12 by Mercatornet.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - Director of Hope Australia.

On June 6 Justice Collins handed down his judgement in the High Court of New Zealand in a case brought by Lecretia Seales. Ms Seales had asked the court whether it would be an offence under the Crimes Act for her doctor to be able to help her die and whether a ban on assisted dying contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights. In rejecting her application Justice Collins observed that:

"Ms Seales’ doctor would have been at risk of being prosecuted for either murder or manslaughter if she administered a fatal drug to Ms Seales intending to kill her. She would have been at risk of being charged with assisting suicide if she provided Ms Seales with a fatal drug, intending for Ms Seales take that drug and if Ms Seales died as a consequence."

This decision has significant implications in the wake of the Robin Stransham-Ford case in South Africa, where Judge Fabricius approved euthanasia or assisted suicide for the appellant, and the Canadian decision in the Carter case that declared effectively that the prohibition on assisted suicide and euthanasia were contrary to provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

In all three cases the appeals have been based on a false premise that the disabilities of advancing illness would render people unable to commit suicide at a time of their choosing and that their rights were being denied on an equal basis with other citizens. This is emotional blackmail. As a colleague of mine expressed it recently: 

"If you won't promise to kill me later when I ask you to then I will kill myself sooner ... and you will have killed me!"

This is all predicated on the false assumption that, because suicide has been decriminalized that it is legal; if it is legal, then it is a right; if it is a right then it should be accessible to all, including people with a disability.

Let's be clear: suicide was decriminalized because it is not in the best interests of a suicide survivor. Suicide is not legal. There is no right to suicide.

Hope Ireland - new group opposing euthanasia & assisted suicide.

Thank you to Paul Russell for writing this article and publishing it on the Hope Australia website.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

It was a great privilege to be invited to be present at the launch of the new organisation, HOPE Ireland and to speak at their inaugural conference in Dublin on the 6th of June.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, director of HOPE Ireland, convened the conference in the wake of recent announcements that a bill will soon be tabled in the Dail (Parliament) in the nation's first attempt through the parliament at legalising assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg, head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International opened the conference and set the scene with the troubling history of both euthanasia and assisted suicide in the few jurisdictions where these practices are approved in law.

Alex Schadenberg

William Binchy, Fellow Emeritus, School of Law at Trinity College Dublin outlined the current case law on euthanasia and assisted suicide and reflected on the challenges that these decisions pose to the protection and application of human rights.

Caroline Roux explained the current troubling developments in France including a dangerous decision in the European Court of Human Rights that endorsed a French Court's earlier decision to starve and dehydrate Vincent Lambert.

Henk Reitsema (Holland) and Tom Mortier (Belgium) outlined their personal and family distress at the euthanasia deaths of a family member while Henk also exposed the undercover killing of patients without consent occurring through the specious use of sedation and then dehydration to death in The Netherlands.

Amy Hasbrouck

Other speakers included Canadian disability activist, Amy Hasbrouck who laid out the historic reasons why people living with disabilities oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, why her and her colleagues are in the frontline of opposition to such practices and why and how we should all work together in coalition.

Overall, the day was a tour de force and an exposition of the case against law change, drawing, as Kevin Fitzpatrick observed, on a deep reservoir of experience collected over many years of opposition.

From observing the assembled 100-plus attendees and in conversation it is very obvious that not only is HOPE Ireland answering a need to get organised and active, but that the expertise and ongoing support from international colleagues and from Kevin himself as director has raised people's confidence that the coming bill will be defeated and that the public understanding of the perils of euthanasia and assisted suicide will continue to be reinforced!

Well done to all!

Some of the media reporting on the conference:

• Group says legalising of euthanasia would have 'catastrophic consequences'.
• Euthanasia and assisted suicide could be discriminatory towards people with disabilities.
• Hope Ireland conference opposing euthanasia.

For more details and to supporrt HOPE Ireland go to the HOPE IRELAND website.

Disability Activists Urge Princeton University to Denounce Professor Peter Singer’s Comments and Call for His Resignation

This Press Release was published on the Not Dead Yet website.

[For a PDF formatted version of this press release, go here.]

Princeton, NJ (PRWEB) June 09, 2015

Disability rights activists from Pennsylvania Not Dead Yet and New Jersey centers for independent living, as well as groups representing parents of people with disabilities, will be marching to Princeton University and holding a protest on June 10, 2015. Activists want Princeton to publicly denounce recent statements by Professor Peter Singer, promoting ending the lives of disabled infants through denial of health care, and for Princeton to take other steps to address what the activists describe as Singer’s “hate speech” toward disabled people.

“Since about 1980, Singer has promoted public policy that would legalize the killing of disabled infants in the first month of life,” said Stephen Drake, Not Dead Yet’s research analyst and expert on Singer. “More recently, he has expanded his position in the context of health care rationing.”

In 2009, the New York Times Magazine published an article by Singer titled ‘Why We Must Ration Health Care.’ In the article Singer spoke hypothetically of assigning a life with quadriplegia as roughly half that of a life without any disability at all. On this basis, Singer laid out a case for denying health care to people with significant disabilities on the basis that these lives have less value than the lives of nondisabled people. A response signed by 20 disability rights organizations was submitted to the magazine, criticizing the decision to seek out Singer as an analyst of healthcare and for the specific content of the article.

“This was probably Peter Singer’s most direct assault on the value of the lives of people with physical disabilities past the age of infancy,” said Drake.

On April 26, 2015 on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Singer again rationalized the killing of disabled infants. Three days later, the National Council on Disability, a council appointed by the U.S. President to provide advice on disability policy, issued a press statement on Singer’s comments during the show. According to the NCD release:

Singer told Klein that health care rationing is already happening, and surmised that hospitals routinely make decisions not based on need, but rather on cost. He then used the presumed practice to rationalize the killing of disabled infants by arguing in support of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings who Singer contends are not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

In addition, Not Dead Yet issued a petition to Princeton through change.org.

Britain to debate assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The British House of Lords has debated many assisted suicide bills over the past few years. In fact the House of Lords debated the Falconer assisted suicide bill in the past year, a bill that died on the order paper before the election. The House of Commons has not debated an assisted suicide bill in 20 years.

Yesterday backbencher British Labour MP, Rob Marris, was chosen first in the Private Members bill ballot giving Marris the right to introduce Falconer's assisted suicide bill in the House of Commons.

According to the BBC, the Marris assisted suicide bill is scheduled for its first hour of debate on September 11.

Prime Minister Cameron

Prime Minister David Cameron, who has a majority government, opposes assisted suicide. The Express and Star reported that Cameron told his weekly Prime Minister's Question Time that:

“I don’t support the assisted dying proposals. I don’t support euthanasia.” 

...problems with the existing law can be ‘dealt with sensitively’ without ‘bringing in euthanasia’.

Mark Atkinson

The media reported that Mark Atkinson, the interim chief of the disability rights charity - Scope warned that legalizing assisted suicide would put people with disabilities at risk:

"Many disabled people are really worried about the legalisation of assisted suicide. 

“They are concerned that it will lead to them feeling under pressure to end their lives.”

While Agnes Fletcher, Director of Living and Dying Well, added: 

“The bill contains very few explicit safeguards.”

The Care Not Killing Alliance, Not Dead Yet UK, Living and Dying Well coalition and many other groups oppose the assisted suicide bill because it gives physicians, the right in law to cause the death of their patients when their patients are at the most vulnerable time of their lives.

EPC campaign to protect people from assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) responded to the Supreme Court of Canada assisted suicide decision with a letter writing campaign to politicians asking them to use the Notwithstanding Clause to protect Canadians from assisted suicide. EPC sent-out 160,000 post-cards asking the Government to use the Notwithstanding clause.

EPC is now promoting the Give us time! campaign in English and French.

The Give us time! campaign asks Canada's Justice Minister Hon Peter MacKay to:

1. Establish a Royal Commission on assisted suicide.
2. Use the notwithstanding clause to give us time.

The Give us time post-cards can be ordered in english or french from EPC for free at: info@epcc.ca or by calling toll free at: 1-877-439-3348.

Together we can make a difference.

• Do Not Kill Me: I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• The Carter decision - Not safe for doctors.
• Opposing the Supreme Court of Canada assisted death decision.
• Supreme Court of Canada assisted suicide decision is irresponsible and dangerous.

New Zealand government does not support assisted suicide.

Prime Minister John Key

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Zealand media reported that the government will establish a "select committee" on euthanasia and assisted suicide, but it is not backing a bill to legalize assisted suicide.

The media reported that:

Prime Minister John Key is backing a select committee inquiry, but said a law change will only be debated if a members bill is submitted and drawn from the ballot. 

Key said some National MPs are deeply opposed to assisted death, and he doesn't think it would make it out of backroom discussion. 

"I don't think that we would, but some caucuses might, depending on the size of them and the sort of nature and make of them."

The New Zealand High Court decided on Friday, June 5 that only parliament can change the assisted suicide law.

Euthanasia Free New Zealand and Not Dead Yet - Aotearoa are effectively opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Euthanasia in Belgium: A subtle but real form of coercion

This article was published on the Vivre dans la Dignitè (Living with Dignity) website.

A recent visit to a nursing home in Belgium reveals that residents are bombarded with the idea that euthanasia is a good choice. It was the "fortnight on 'end of life'". An admittedly important subject, but which must be discussed in a balanced way. Here, at the opening of the event, a video was presented, biased in favour of euthanasia. The rest of the program isn't objective either.

Under the pretense of informing residents, they plant the idea that euthanasia is a good solution. But nowhere is a balanced view presented in the program: they do not speak of options for life; they only speak of the choice of death.

First week's schedule posted
in the lobby of the residence.

We were told that most residents feel quite lonely. They no longer have friends. Their family does not come to visit them, or rarely. Even friendships formed at the rest home go out when friendslose their mobility or die. The sense of isolation is very strong for a majority of the residents of such nursing homes.

The schedule of this "fortnight on end of life" is displayed at the entrance of the residence, and also in the elevator and on each floor. This is part of the social activities of the residence. Not having very much to do, residents attend almost all of these social activities. The term "captive audience" comes to mind.

It is a form of subtle and very effective coercion. Nobody forces the individual to make that "choice." It's not like they twisted their arm, or that they held a gun to their head. No, nothing as obvious.

Yet, requests for euthanasia follow one another.

Note:

• The "Early declaration" document is about euthanasia. See the official document in French.
• The screening of the movie "Amour", in which an elderly man uses a pillow to smother his wife who has aphasia (and perhaps dementia), after refusing the assistance that had been offered to him. More uplifting movies should be offered, especially to elderly people who may be at the end of their life.
• This propaganda comes from the Association pour le Droit de Mourir dans la Dignité (Association for the right to die with dignity), a Belgian association that was incidental in the legalisation of euthanasia in Belgium (including for children). Half of the members of the euthanasia surveillance commission in Belgium belong to ADMD. We should expect elderly people in Québec will be facing similar propaganda in the coming years.

The program displayed
in the elevator.

Program

Monday, June 1: Opening of the fortnight on "End of Life"

Introductory remarks
Videotape "Living with euthanasia" of the ADMD

Tuesday, June 2: Presentation of "Advance directives"

Wednesday, June 3: Speech on "The place of the family at the end of life"

Thursday, June 4: Conference on "end of life" presented by ADMD

Friday, June 5: Philo Workshop "What is a good death? "

Saturday, June 6: Movie "Stepmom"

Sunday, June 7: Presentation of the document "Early Declaration"

Monday, June 8: "The importance of aesthetics at the end of life"

Tuesday, June 9: Conference on "pain"

Wednesday, June 10: Presentation on "The end of life of the elderly"

Thursday, June 11: "The institutions Residents of Rights"

Friday, June 12: Roundtable discussion on the fortnight

Saturday, June 13: Movie "Amour"