Final Exit Network - Exposé in the Atlantic magazine.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Atlantic Magazine published an exposé on the Final Exit Network (FEN) that appears to promote their "services." FEN is an association of groups and individuals who assist the suicides of others by counseling, providing advice and providing the means for suicide.

The Atlantic does interview Stephen Drake, from Not Dead Yet, who is the longest and one of the most active critics of the Final Exit Network. According to the Atlantic:

Others opponents include disability-rights groups and hospices. Critics of the right-to-die movement have called Final Exit Network extremist. Some have even called it a death cult. Others have accused the group of glorifying suicide. One such band of critics is Not Dead Yet—essentially the antithesis of Final Exit Network. Not Dead Yet “is a national, grassroots disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia,” according to its website. 

Stephen Drake, a Not Dead Yet research analyst—who dubbed Final Exit Network “the Tea Party of the right-to-die movement”—said most people are missing the bigger picture. “The fact of the matter is they have no idea if [exit guides] are following their policy,” Drake said. “Lots of people who contemplate suicide change their mind. … Why would people who are old, ill, or disabled not change their minds at the last moment?”  

... 

Drake’s sentiments are well echoed among critics of the network. Stephen Rosenbaum, who has litigated in disability and civil rights law and teaches at the law schools of Golden Gate University and the University of California, Berkeley, characterizes Final Exit Network’s tactics as “stark” and “a little too far out there.”  “I am strongly ambivalent—and maybe even troubled—and see it as overkill in [how the network is] publicizing its mission,” he says. “If you really want to take to heart terms like ‘death with dignity’ … then your approach cannot be a slick, Madison Avenue-style advertisement for death.” 

Past articles about the Final Exit Network

• FEN found guilty for assisting the suicide of depressed Minnesota woman.
• America's Dr Death loses medical license.
• Who are the Final Exit Network?
• Exoo, Exit, Derek Humphrey and Assisted Suicide.
• Misleading claims by Final Exit Network.

The Final Exit Network will cover-up a suicide. The Atlantic article continued:

“Once the Exit Guides have determined the member has died, they will proceed to gather equipment used in the suicide. They will also collect all materials referencing any connection with Final Exit Network,” the statement reads. “If requested by the member, Exit Guides will also remove all other items indicating a suicide had occurred. Exit Guides subsequently dispose of these materials in a trash bin some distance away from the location of the suicide.”

John Celmer died in Georgia.
He was depressed but
recovering from cancer.

Final Exit Network lawyer, Robert Rivas, says that he understands that sometimes mistakes happen. The Atlantic article states:

He (Rivas) channels his bluntness into all of his exit guide training sessions. Before an exit guide sits with a person as they die, they sit in a room with Rivas as he explains the “looming possibility” that they could very well be prosecuted. 

Like in 2009, when four exit guides were jailed—then released after two days, when bail was made—and other members’ homes were searched amid a Georgia Bureau of Investigation national campaign to prosecute the network. The bureau seized “paperwork, records and computers,” from key members in the network, according to GBI. Investigators uncovered 523 names of people who reached out to Final Exit Network “for assistance with their suicide.” 

“Nobody knows better than I do, sometimes courts make mistakes. Exit guides make mistakes,” Rivas said. “It’s a looming possibility out there for every exit guide, and I make them say to themselves in training sessions: ‘I understand this is possible, and I’m prepared to accept that possibility.’”

The Final Exit Network claims that all of the suicide's are of people who are vetted and not mentally ill. The Atlantic then reported on the death of Jana Van Voorhis.

In 2007, Jana Van Voorhis, a 58-year-old woman from Phoenix, told Final Exit Network that she was dying of cancer. But Van Voorhis wasn’t dying at all. “She had no terminal illness,” says Jared Thomas, Van Voorhis’ brother-in-law, who found her body when he and his wife went to check on her at her home. “She was mentally ill. … She was a doctor-shopper.”... 

In 2007, Jana Van Voorhis, a 58-year-old woman from Phoenix, told Final Exit Network that she was dying of cancer. But Van Voorhis wasn’t dying at all. “She had no terminal illness,” says Jared Thomas, Van Voorhis’ brother-in-law, who found her body when he and his wife went to check on her at her home. “She was mentally ill. … She was a doctor-shopper.”

Thomas then says:

“One of our problems with the organization in this case was their arrogance,”

The Final Exit Network is once again trying to build an image of freedom fighters or "caring" advocates, when in fact they are people who based on a philosophy or a personal life experience have decided that some lives are better off dead, and they will help those people die.

Tyranny disguised as autonomy in euthanasia cases.

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on July 5, 2016

Paul Rusell

By Paul Russell
Director of HOPE Australia.

Two memes dominate the pro-euthanasia rhetoric; choice and pain.

Yet in a significant number of media stories featuring people who want access to euthanasia and assisted suicide we see that it is not pain that is the dominant driving factor; it is fear of the possibility of future pain and, most often the fear of loss of autonomy. The latter is often expressed in terms of not wishing to go to a nursing facility or hospital or loss of freedom of movement brought on by the accumulation of perhaps minor ailments associated with aging.

That many of the people who are featured in such stories would not necessarily qualify under the 'first-step' euthanasia or assisted suicide proposals, such as that offered in the recent Report to the Victorian Parliament, is never mentioned. If this is all really about choice and autonomy, then it is legitimate to ask why some might gain access while others would not have that same 'choice'?

Indeed, experience of pain has been identified as very much a lower order concern in people who had made a request for an assisted suicide death under Oregon state law. Perhaps the message that pain can be dealt with in the vast majority of cases is getting through. Still, there remains an understandable and entirely natural fear of the unknown.

That most people's experiences of such fears are ameliorated once they begin to access good care and support should tell us that fear is no basis for changing the law. And yet it remains the stock-in-trade of those pushing for change.

While autonomy or choice is a more potent argument, it is not without its problems; insurmountable problems. The 'choice' argument is really little more than a clever pandering to the Baby Boomer generation. This generation, broadly speaking, has experienced life very much on their own terms, if not almost entirely so. The desire to control the last 'uncontrollable' in death itself is perhaps the last and most elusive marker for this 'me' generation.

Yet it is entirely possible and increasingly most likely that the early engagement with palliative care for a person experiencing a significant illness will overcome genuine concerns about loss of autonomy and enable the person and their families to make quality decisions about the kind of care they want, how they relate to service providers and how they express their needs and desires. To decide not to engage is entirely up to the individual; that is, unless the services available are not up to standard in some way. In such circumstances it would be an indictment on our society if a failure in service provision and support lead to a loss of choice and autonomy. Euthanasia in such circumstances can never be said to be about choice.

But arguments based on autonomy are never quite what they seem. As noted already, not everyone will get the 'choice' to be made dead under a new law - at least not initially. There are competing realities here - even in where the line is drawn in the first instance - that invite the observation that the meme of choice, like the focus on pain, is very much an illusion.

The Canadian Parliament passed euthanasia law Bill C-14: I expected more from our government.

The following letter was published in the Penticton Western News on June 30, 2016

From Doug Sharpe - Summerland, BC

From the first day Bill C-14 was introduced in the House of Commons, members from all parties began the work of attempting to make this sow’s ear into a silk purse.
Even in the final days of deliberation, when the bill bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, a majority of members still held on to the hope that they could get the job done for Canadians and turn this ‘bad’ bill into ‘good’ law.

One last ditch attempt to clean up the mess introduced in Bill C-14 by the Liberal government was the proposal of a protective amendment that would prohibit a beneficiary from participating in a person’s assisted death, or, signing the person’s request for assisted death.

This was a proposal that protected people from a greedy beneficiary or an unscrupulous family member.

But wait, why try to make this bad bill better? Turns out, this protective amendment didn’t ‘fit the bill’ so it was passed without it ­ by a majority of Parliament. And, why should Parliament at this point, even try to make the legislation better? Especially when the sweet smell of summer is calling back home and the steaks are sizzling away on the barbeque.

That call of summer sure seemed to be a draw on the attention of MPs and senators because they then chose to conveniently pass the bill ‘as is’ on the last day of the Parliament schedule.

Just in time for the summer recess making no further attempt to amend even the most grievous parts of Bill C-14.

Like this one.

Bill C-14 provides medical practitioners or nurse practitioners legal immunity for decisions or acts that contravene the law.

A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner only needs to be ‘of the opinion’ that the person meets all of the criteria to be euthanized even if in the end they have ‘a reasonable but mistaken belief’ about any facts regarding the person’s eligibility.

These sections of the law (among others) ensure that a medical or nurse practitioner will never be prosecuted for decisions or acts that contravene Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 also allows anyone to cause death by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Section 227(2) of the bill states; no person is a party to culpable homicide if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying. No person? Doing anything?

No jurisdiction in the world offers legal immunity to anyone who does anything for the purposes of assisting death. But here in Canada, our Parliament passed Bill C-14 with this clause making it the most wide-open bill in the world. Even worse than the notorious Belgian euthanasia law.

Parliament and the government of Canada have only one ‘primary’ responsibility and that is to provide for the safety and security of the citizens of Canada. Especially those who are vulnerable.

Parliament is also tasked with the responsibility of passing good legislation. They have failed on both counts and have proven themselves blind to the implications of dangerous language in the laws they pass. The issue of legalizing euthanasia is such an important matter.

As a citizen of Canada, I expected so much more from my MPs and senators.

Doug Sharpe
Summerland, BC

Quebec Health Minister orders palliative care doctors to Kill

This article was written by Wesley Smith and published on his blog on July 3, 2016

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Palliative care is about ameliorating suffering and respecting the lives of each patient. It isn’t a synonym for assisted suicide or euthanasia. 

Or to put it another way, hospice and palliative care are about living. Euthanasia/assisted suicide are about killing. 

Indeed, when I interviewed the great medical humanitarian, Dame Cecily Saunders–founder of the modern hospice movement–she told me that assisted suicide was wholly incompatible with hospice because it denies the intrinsic equal dignity of every patient. 

Amen to that. But once the culture of death takes poisonous root, it poisons all it touches–and particularly targets hospice and palliative care, which are its mirror opposite. 

That’s why I am not surprised–infuriated, but not surprised–that Quebec’s Minister of Health is ordering palliative care docs in a hospital to kill legally qualified patients who ask for euthanasia. From the Global News story: 

Health minister Gaétan Barrette is taking the MUHC to task for denying doctor-assisted death to patients in palliative care. 

Barrette said he recently learned the hospital requires patients to transfer out of the palliative care department in order to follow through with doctor-assisted dying procedures. 

They are also required to have been patients for at least 18 months prior to the move. Barette called this practice “totally illegal” because a hospital cannot decide which departments will or will not offer medical aid to die. 

Canada is no longer a free country. Forcing people in the medical professions to commit homicide is tyranny, pure and simple! 

I hope the policy tells him to stick it in his ear in a policy of total noncooperation. 

If the Health Minister is so keen on seeing patients killed, let him give the lethal jab. Euthanasia, after all, isn’t really medicine.

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Legalizing assisted suicide is not safe.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on May 3, 2016 found that Medical error is the third leading cause of death representing at least 251,000 deaths per year in the United States. The study by Dr Martin Makery and Dr Michael Daniel from the John's Hopkins Department of Surgery is more comprehensive than previous studies.

The Washington Post reported that:

Makary's research involves a more comprehensive analysis of four large studies, including ones by the Health and Human Services Department's Office of the Inspector General and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that took place between 2000 to 2008. His calculation of 251,000 deaths equates to nearly 700 deaths a day -- about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.

The Washington Post reported Mackery as stating:

"When a plane crashes, we don’t say this is confidential proprietary information the airline company owns. We consider this part of public safety. Hospitals should be held to the same standards,"

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Very few doctors face serious repercussions for their errors. People have the right to have greater protection in medical facilities. The lives of patients and patient safety must be the priority in medicine. 

This study does not indicate how many injuries or long-term health issues are caused by medical error.

Pietro D'Amico

In April 2013, Pietro D'Amico died at a Swiss assisted suicide clinic, after receiving a wrong diagnosis. An article published in Switzerland's english news service, The Local, stated:

... lawyer Michele Roccisano told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. 

An autopsy carried out by the University of Basel’s Institute of Forensic Medicine found that D’Amico was not suffering from a life-threatening illness at the time of his death. 

Roccisano has called on the Italian and Swiss authorities to examine D’Amico’s medical records to determine what went wrong.

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide enables doctors to cover-up their medical errors or cause the death of a patient with a wrong diagnosis. Legalizing assisted suicide is not safe.

Massachusetts assisted suicide bill dies in committee.

John Kelly (Second Thoughts)

The following article was published by Second Thoughts Massachusetts on June 30, 2016

The Joint Committee On Public Health has declined to advance the latest assisted suicide bill, H 1991, euphemistically titled “An act affirming a terminally ill patient’s right to compassionate aid in dying.” 

Congratulations to all the disability rights advocates and allies who worked against the bill.
Thank you to the state legislature, which for the fifth time in seven years rejected an assisted suicide bill. 

A special thank you to Somerville Rep. Denise Provost, who campaigned for us as a matter of social justice. 

The committee and public heard from disability disability rights advocates through personal visits, a legislative briefing sponsored by Rep. Provost, and irrefutable testimony at the October 2015 hearing. 

Influential advocacy came from grassroots groups including the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), Boston Disability Commission, Disability Policy Consortium, Mass ADAPT, MPOWER, and Second Thoughts MA. Other disability-led organizations remained in opposition. The Massachusetts Medical Society and other medical groups continued their opposition.

Do Not Kill Me: I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC offers four ways to protect you from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

1. The Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care will protect you when you cannot make medical or personal care decisions for yourself.

This legal document enables you to appoint someone you trust to be your Power of Attorney for Personal Care. This document makes clear statements concerning euthanasia, assisted suicide and medical treatment options that you need when you are unable to make decisions for yourself such as receiving food and water unless you are actually nearing death.

Each province or state has different legislation concerning power of attorney's for health care. The Life Protecting Power of Attorney uses a basic format that is legal within most jurisdictions.

EPC distributes the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for $10. Contact EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

2. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges you to write a simple straight forward letter to your physician to be included within your medical record explaining that you oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

3. The Do Not Kill Me wallet card is available from EPC upon request or by donating to EPC. Sign the back of the card. 

EPC will send the Do Not Kill Me wallet card when you call: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca.

4. EPC works with Compassionate Community Care (CCC), a service that offers practical advice and information for people when they or a loved one is: 

• Being denied medical treatment or basic personal care, such as food and water; 
• Has questions related to life-support measures; or 
• Concerned that a loved one is considering euthanasia or assisted suicide..

CCC has developed a community based training program to be with people who are lonely and isolated. Contact CCC at: 1-855-675-8749. 

Membership in the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is $25 for an individual or $50 for a group. Pay for your membership online, or by credit card by calling EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

My Deep Sadness This Canada Day

This article was published by Mark Pickup on his blog on July 1, 2016.

Mark Pickup

July 1st is Canada Day, in celebration of Canada becoming a nation on this date in 1867. While the rest of Canada whoops it up, the nation's sick and disabled have reason to fear.

I am filled with deep sadness. I feel like a stranger in the country where I was born and have lived all my 63 years. A few weeks ago, Canada passed a law sanctioning physician assisted suicide for suicidal sick and disabled citizens. Canada believes that other Canadians deserve suicide prevention counselling. I know this because in October of 2012, parliament gave unanimous support (including our current Prime Minister) to the idea of a national suicide prevention strategy. Four years later they pass a law for assisted suicide for suicidal sick and disabled Canadians.

Mark Pickup

What did that say to me as an incurably ill and disabled Canadian? It said that the government of Canada and the Supreme Court see healthy and able-bodied citizens as worth more than people like me. Of course the government elites and media would not come right out and say that. After all, Canadians are polite people even though Canada would help me kill myself. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's comment: "After all, when you have kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

The self-congratulatory indulgence of the nation today is not for me. I will stay home.

Yesterday, my friend and former parliamentarian David Kilgour posted a link on his Facebook page with a link to an article entitled "Canada ranked as second best country in the world". I commented: "That is, if you are not disabled and suicidal." A woman responded: "What an ignorant comment - not even remotely funny." Actually, madam, what is ignorant is that Canada would sanction assisted suicide, and I was not trying to be funny."

I was expressing my deep sadness on this Canada Day. This patriot has been alienated from protections against killing myself should I sink beneath the waves of my circumstance and become suicidal. My country will not throw me a life-jacket. It will push me further down under a misguided idea of personal autonomy.

New Mexico Supreme Court decides that "aid in dying" is assisted suicide and there is no right to assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Mexico Supreme Court

The New Mexico Supreme Court decided in a 5 - 0 decision upheld the New Mexico Court of Appeal decision that assisting a suicide is a crime in New Mexico in Morris v Brandenburg. The Supreme Court decision was based on an activist lower court decision that found a right to assisted suicide in New Mexico.

Catherine G. Foster, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom who represented legislators urging the court to uphold the Court of Appeals and find no right to aid in dying, told Scott Sandlin from the Albuquerque Journal that the Supreme Court decision is “a win for all New Mexicans.

“Physician-assisted suicide threatens all people and turns the focus from treatment to terminality and death,” said Foster, executive director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA. “Simply put, diagnoses and prognoses aren’t foolproof, and no law can protect our weakest citizens, particularly the elder and disabled communities, from the coercion and abuse that go hand-in-hand with (it).”

The New Mexico Supreme Court decision states (page 2, 3):

the State has legitimate interests in (1) protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession; (2) protecting vulnerable groups—including the poor, the elderly, and disabled persons—from the risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life situations, including pressures associated with the substantial financial burden of end-of-life health care costs; and (3) protecting against voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if physician aid in dying is a constitutional right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. Therefore, we decline to hold that there is an absolute and fundamental constitutional right to a physician’s aid in dying and conclude that Section 30-2-4 is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Petitioners in this case.

The original case was based on a word game. The original case argued 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 New Mexico Supreme Court decision found that "aid in dying" is assisted suicide and therefore it is prohibited by the State assisted suicide law. The decision states (page 14) that according to plain language:

For aid in dying, the lethal dose prescribed by a physician is intended to provide the means for a patient to end his or her own life, which is consistent with how “aiding” has been defined under Section 30-2-4. Therefore, when providing aid in dying, a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of barbiturates for the patient’s use as a means to end his or her own life—conduct clearly encompassed by the plain language of Section 30-2-4.

The original case also 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. 

The New Mexico Supreme Court decision responded to this claim by examining the US Supreme Court Glucksburg  decision (1997). Glucksburg held that laws prohibiting assisted suicide were constitutional. The New Mexico Supreme Court stated (page 28):

We may diverge from the Glucksberg precedent if we determine that the federal analysis is flawed or that New Mexico has distinct characteristics in the relevant area or that structural differences between our government and the federal government exist. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19. For the reasons that follow, we choose not to deviate from either the ultimate holding in Glucksberg or the suggestion that a more particularized showing might prevail.

Further to that the New Mexico Supreme Court decision stated (page 36):

we conclude that there are no distinctive state characteristics with respect to the due process protections of Article II, Section 18 that warrant a departure from the federal analysis holding that physician aid in dying is not a fundamental right.

Finally the court held that the New Mexico assisted suicide law was within the interest of the state. The decision stated (page 55):

We are persuaded that end-of-life decisions are inherently fraught with the potential for abuse and undue influence as evidenced by the protections outlined in the UHCDA and the Pain Relief Act, and therefore the government interests we have identified, similar to those in Glucksberg, are supported by a firm legal rationale.

Therefore the New Mexico Supreme Court in a unanimous decision upheld the state assisted suicide law, they determined that aid in dying is assisted suicide and therefore applies to the state assisted suicide law and that the New Mexico assisted suicide law is not unconstitutional. 

Links to previous articles on the New Mexico Morris v Brandenburg assisted suicide case.

• New Mexico Supreme Court to hear assisted suicide case.
• New Mexico Supreme Court asked to hear assisted suicide case.
• New Mexico Court of Appeal overturned activist lower court assisted suicide decision.
• New Mexico court of appeal heard assisted suicide case.
• New Mexico Attorney General appeals assisted suicide court decision.
• Attorney General must appeal assisted suicide court decision in New Mexico.

Belgium nursing home ordered to compensate family for refusing to participate in euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A civil court in Leuven Belgium ordered a Belgian nursing home to compensate a family because the nursing home refused to participate in euthanasia.

According to the European Institute of Bioethics report, the civil court ordered the Sint Augustinus nursing home to pay 6000 euros to the family of Mariette Buntjens, "for the harm they suffered from having to move their mother so that she could be euthanized".

Mariette Buntjens (74) died by euthanasia in the family home in August 2011. The family claimed that the the nursing home refused to allow doctors to interview their mother at the nursing home for the purpose of euthanasia.

During the trial (May 18, 2016) the nursing home told the court that the conditions for euthanasia were not met and the nursing home claimed that the doctors had not contacted the nursing home medical team for the interview.

Courts should consider the pressure that is exerted on elderly people to die by euthanasia. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the nursing home will appeal the decision.

Link to a previous article on this case.

Forcing euthanasia in Quebec hospitals contravenes patient rights

The Québec government is now insisting that hospitals euthanize people promptly.

MONTREAL, Quebec - June 30, 2016 - PRLog - (Link to the Press Release)

Forcing euthanasia in Quebec hospitals
contravenes patient rights

The Québec government's insistence that hospitals euthanize people in Palliative care units contradicts the medical code of conduct of physicians, who have an obligation to provide the best medical care for their patients. Euthanasia does not meet the standards of best medical care for people who are at the end of life and require palliative care. Despite the Québec law and more recently the Canadian Law, no physician has an obligation to perform euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Québec law requires that the treating physician who receives a request for euthanasia and objects to administering it for personal reasons must refer the request to the medical director of the establishment. Nevertheless the Québec law and Federal law are being challenged in the Québec Superior Court. It is noteworthy that the World Medical Association advises physicians to actively refuse to abide by euthanasia or assisted suicide laws even in jurisdictions where laws have been passed.

Dr Paul Saba

Dr Paul Saba, who is contesting both the Quebec and Canadian euthanasia laws, states that euthanasia and assisted suicide are dangerous and will cause the needless loss of lives of people who may have many years to live. Palliative care is a place where only palliation must be practiced. Patients have a right to be protected and not pressured into ending their lives prematurely. The Québec government is acting recklessly and dangerously in transforming Palliative Care units into euthanasia units. Even the Québec law recognizes a distinction between Palliative care and euthanasia. People who want to live their lives to the end in dignity surrounded by loved ones deserve the respect and support offered by Palliative care units. They have the right not to live in fear of being killed prematurely by a lethal injection. Physicians also have the right to care for their patients according to the highest standards of medical care which includes palliative care but does not include euthanasia.

Dr. Saba questions the true motives of the Québec and Canadian governments. Is the pressure to euthanize due to the lack of health care for its citizens, including the lack of palliative care for those who truly are at the end of life? Is the Québec government creating a false debate in demanding faster access to euthanasia when Quebecers do not have access or prompt enough access to essential services like family physicians, cancer screening and even cancer surgery? Presently 52% of Montrealers cannot be operated within the 4 week window mandated by the government. 900 beds are being closed this summer. Is the government using euthanasia as a means of freeing up more beds? This goes against the will of Quebecers and Canadians as revealed by a recent Angus Reid Poll (April 1 2016). The poll reveals that the majority of Canadians are opposed to physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia because of lack of health care. Canadians oppose PAS because: "the cost of a patient's care is very expensive to the health care system (79%); "a person has no hope for the future and no meaning to their lives (69%); "a person has multiple health conditions and feels overwhelmed (64%); and "a person's care appears to be a burden to their family (74%)." A slim majority of 55% are in favour of PAS "because Canadians are unable to get access to medical care to treat their pain and suffering." http://angusreid.org/assisted-suicide-law/

"This reveals that Quebecers and Canadians want good health care and not euthanasia as the solution for the lack of access to medical care"- states Dr. Paul Saba, a family physician. "Many Canadians wait a long time for: physicians, specialists, screening, testing and treatments. Canadians' access to specialist and primary care is the lowest among 11 comparable countries."

Attorneys Dominique Talarico and Natalia Manole, who represent Dr. Saba in his legal challenge against euthanasia, state that "In the absence of appropriate medical care and services, it is impossible to give a free and informed consent to receive physician-assisted suicide. By not having access to the good care, a person may end his or her life prematurely."

Contact
Dr. Paul Saba M.D.
514-249-8541
514-886-3447
pauljsaba@gmail.com

Photo:
http://www.prlog.org/12569653/1

Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands Belgium and Oregon - a comparative analysis.

Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article written by Eveline Dokter and published by ntvg.nl news on June 20, 2016 compares the euthanasia and assisted suicide statistics in the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon. The analysis by Dokter of the Netherlands euthanasia data is more indepth than the Belgian and Oregon data. Dokter reports in her article:

Since the introduction of the Dutch euthanasia law in 2002, the number of notifications for euthanasia nearly tripled. In 2015 doctors in the Netherlands reported 5516 cases of euthanasia or assisted suicide.(1) One of these reports came from the BES islands. In 109 patients dementia formed the basis of the suffering and in 56 patients a psychiatric disorder. Although the reporting rate for euthanasia over the years greatly increased, there is still underreporting. In 1990, doctors reported only 18% of the number of cases, in 2001, 54% and in 2010. 77%. (2) This means that still 914 cases of euthanasia were not reported in 2010.

The analysis by Doktor of the Belgian and Oregon laws is less indepth. For instance she doesn't report on the underreporting of euthanasia in Belgium. The article reports:

In Belgium and the US state of Oregon (assisted suicide) euthanasia is also allowed. In Oregon assisted suicide is allowed in patients with a short life expectancy. People who are not sick but who see their lives as completed are not eligible. Over the years in Oregon, Belgium and the Netherlands until 2014, both the absolute and relative numbers of euthanasia and assisted suicide have increased.(3-8) In 2015, doctors reported 4, 18 and 37 out of 1,000 deaths as euthanasia or assisted suicide. These figures are consistent with the trend previously up to 2012 reported in The Lancet.(9) It is striking that the vast majority of the Belgian euthanasia cases occurred in Flanders. This is probably due to the cultural differences between the Flemish and the Wallonians.(10)

Doktor didn't examine the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study on March 19, 2015 showing that 4.6% of all deaths in Flanders (2013) are euthanasia, even though the official data indicates that 2.4% of the deaths are reported as euthanasia indicating that nearly half of all Belgian euthanasia deaths are not reported.

According to the 2015 Oregon death with dignity data summary, of 218 people who received a lethal prescription, the ingestion status was unknown for 43 of the people and 5 of the people who died, no report was submitted, meaning these are possible cases of underreporting.

Dokter provided the following references:

1. Regional assesment committee on euthanasia. 2015, April 2016. Jaarverslag (Yearly report).

2. In vestigation of death cases in the Netherlands. Sterfgevallenonderzoek 2010. Euthanasie en andere medische beslissingen rond het levenseinde. 10 juli 2012.

3. Yearly reports Death with Dignity Act Oregon, via Public Health Oregon.

4. Death statistics Oregon, via Public Health Oregon.

5. Year reports euthanasia Belgium 2002-2015 http://leif.be/professionele-info/rapporten/.

6. Death statistics Belgium 2000-2015, Statbel mortalité generale.

7. Regional assessment committee euthanasia, Jaarverslag 2002-2015 (Yearly reports).

8. Death statistics the Netherlands 2000-2015, Statline CBS.

9. Claudia Gamondi et al. Legalisation of assisted suicide: a safeguard to euthanasia? The Lancet, vol 384, 12 juli 2014.

10. Cohen et al. Cultural differences affecting euthanasia practice in Belgium: one law but different attitudes and practices in Flanders and Wallonia. Soc Science & Medicine. 2012, 17 mei (Epub ahead of print).

The translation was by Dr J.A. Raymakers

The first court case to expand euthanasia in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has wasted no time in launching the first legal challenge to Canada's recently passed euthanasia and assisted suicide law.

Globe and Mail reporter Laura Stone informs us that the BC Civil Liberties Association is launching a court case to "strike down" as unconstitutional the provision in the euthanasia law that states a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" to qualify for death by lethal injection.

According to the Globe and Mail article:

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, along with a woman who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, say they will launch a legal challenge to the government’s new law in Vancouver on Monday. 

The rights group argues that the law, which passed in Parliament 10 days ago, is unconstitutional. 

The Liberal government faced mounting criticism that the law, known as Bill C-14, was too restrictive, due to a provision that says a patient’s natural death must be “reasonably foreseeable” in order to qualify for assisted death. The Senate voted to remove that requirement, but the Liberal government rejected the amendment and the Red Chamber passed the bill with several small changes.

EPC argued that the "terminal illness" (natural death must be reasonably foreseeable) definition in the bill lacked definition and meaning.

This is the first of many court challenges to Canada's euthanasia and assisted suicide law. The euthanasia lobby are wanting to extend euthanasia to "mature" minors, to people with dementia (through advanced directives) and for people with psychiatric conditions alone.

EPC will examine this legal case and then determine how we will respond.

Wesley J. Smith - Culture of Death: The Age of "Do Harm" Medicine.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

In 2001, Wesley Smith published one of the most influential books challenging the culture of death. At that time, EPC sold hundreds of copies of the book. Since then, many people have been waiting for Smith to update his book and now we have it.

Recently released, Wesley Smith has written an excellent defense of traditional ethics in his recent - Culture of Death: The Age of "Do Harm" Medicine. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is selling Culture of Death for $35 (Link) (includes shipping). Indicate that the $35 is for Culture of Death which has 333 pages and is published by Encounter books. 

Wesley Smith was interviewed by Bioedge about the new edition of Culture of Death. Here is some of what he said in the interview:

Smith: There is less respect for human equality and the sanctity of life in healthcare generally, I fear, and not only in the U.S. Indeed, I changed the subtitle of the book to “The Age of ‘Do Harm’ Medicine” because it now grapples with developments outside the United States as well as in my own country. We are all connected, so that what happens in Canada impacts Australia, what happens in the USA can have a pull on South Africa.

I have observed in the 15 years since the first edition of Culture of Death, that throughout the developed world and the West we see a terrible and increasing disrespect for the intrinsic value of the most weak and vulnerable among us. Euthanasia has spread like a stain and grown increasingly toxic. For example, in Belgium medicalized killing is now coupled with organ harvesting—including of the mentally ill. Health care rationing, which is blatant and invidious medical discrimination, is a growing threat. Advocacy continues to discard the dead donor rule in organ transplant medicine, even proposals for the live-harvesting of patients with profound cognitive disabilities.

If there is a “bright spot,” it is to be found among the medical professionals—doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physicians assistants, etc.—who continue to resist these utilitarian bioethical agendas and work in the trenches of clinical medicine with an ongoing commitment to the wellbeing and equal value of all patients.

Wesley J. Smith

Smith: It’s a difficult problem. The popular media is increasingly tabloid in its approach to reporting. It is the rare story that informs the general population about the threatening and radical ideas emanating from the academy, in the professional journals, and from among the leaders of the bioethical/medical establishments.

One of the purposes of the book is to help readers be forewarned of the potential threat they or their loved ones could face in a clinical setting—note, I don’t say will, but could—to enable them to mount a defense should an attempt be made to push a vulnerable patient out of the lifeboat.

Ironically, the media can be very helpful in such circumstances, because while the journalistic sector does a terrible job generally of reporting about bioethical issues—and are very boosting of assisted suicide—they often cast klieg lights on individual cases of medical oppression against particular patients, which can personalize the issue in such a way as to gain the attention and sympathy of the general public.

Smith: Assisted suicide and euthanasia are going to continue to be bioethical hot potatoes. Medical futility. Protecting medical conscience rights for health care professionals who wish to adhere to Hippocratic values is going to be huge internationally. I mean, if we are not careful, in 20 years one may not be able to find a doctor who would not be willing to kill you under some circumstances, which I find a very frightening prospect.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is selling - Culture of Death - for a $25 donation  (link) Culture of Death is published by Encounter books and has 333 pages.