France will debate the legalization of euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Amanda Morrow published today by RFI news states that France's President Emmanuel Macron stated earlier this year that he wants France to legalize Belgian style euthanasia.

Macron responded to a report released by the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) saying that it was in favour of assisted suicide under strict, supervised conditions.

An Associated Press article reported that Macron said in a written statement that a body composed of citizens will work on the issue in the coming months in coordination with health care workers, while local debates are to be organized in French regions. The government will in parallel hold discussions with lawmakers from all political parties in order to find the broadest consensus.

It is concerning that earlier this year Macron said that he supported Belgian style euthanasia. Belgium's euthanasia law is very wide and poorly monitored.

France needs to fully examine Canada's experience with legalizing euthanasia and then reject the idea. Canada is the prime example of how euthanasia can go out of control quickly.

• Belgium 2021 euthanasia report: At least 50 people died by euthanasia for mental illness in 2021 (Link).
• Belgian euthanasia doctor accused of unlawful euthanasia (Link).
• Belgium euthanasia of newborns practised outside of the law (Link).

Lancet: Worries grow about Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paul Webster was published in the Lancet on September 10, 2022 with an article titled: Worries grow about Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada. 

It is significant that a medical journal was specifically interested in uncovering the problems with Canada's euthanasia law.

Webster interview was not biased. Webster also interviewed Helen Long from the euthanasia lobby group, Dying With Dignity Canada.

Webster sets the stage for his article by interviewing Trudo Lemmens, a health law specialist at the University of Toronto who has tracked the impacts of Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation since it was first enacted in 2016. Lemmens reportedly states:

“Even before the law is set to be expanded to include mentally ill patients, we already have worryingly

high numbers of people dying,” says Lemmens, who argues that Canada’s approach is far more permissive than comparator nations, including Belgium and the Netherlands. “We’ve failed to sufficiently safeguard against the medicalisation of ageing.”

Lemmens told Webster that Canada's MAiD numbers are quickly bypassing the deaths in the Netherlands and Belgium. He then says:

Amid this expansion, Lemmens warns that the current numbers of patients dying are already a “red flag”, indicating a possible over- permissiveness on the part of some Canadian physicians who care for patients seeking death.

Lemmens explains the difference between Canada's euthanasia law and the Netherlands and Belgian laws.

Unlike in Belgium and Netherlands, where physicians are required to pursue mental illness treatment options with their patients,” says Lemmens, “this idea has been abandoned in Canada, where patients can simply say they don’t want treatment.”

Lemmens is referring to people who are asking for euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Webster explains that the parliamentary review of the law which was supposed to occur in 2020 - 21 is now happening. He asked about my thoughts concerning the review.

“The parliamentary committee has a very limited mandate,” Schadenberg notes. “We think the MAID law should be fully reviewed, and in the meantime we should go back to the original law passed in 2016.”

Schadenberg says that the Canadian Government’s management of the legal reforms to the 2016 MAID law, which included a decision not to appeal the Quebec lower court decision that paved the way for the decision to greatly expand access to MAID, has created a situation where “it’s becoming easier to get death than treatment”.

Some international observers share the concerns of Lemmens and Schadenberg. Last year, a team of special rapporteurs for the UN warned that Canada’s liberalisation of medically assisted dying posed threats to its older and infirm populations.

I was stating that the MAiD law should be fully reviewed. We do not support the original law, but I was responding to the point of what should happen as they review the law.

Webster also interviewed Helen Long, the President of the euthanasia lobby group Dying With Dignity who told Webster that:

While citing data indicating that people with cancers, as well as those with cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory diseases, account for around 95% of all medically assisted deaths in Canada, Long argues that existing safeguards within the new law passed in 2021 are sufficient. “We don’t see any evidence of problems,” she insists.

In this context, Long says that she sees the expansion of the law to include patients with mental illnesses as “a good thing”. She anticipates that “the number of people with mental illnesses who seek and obtain MAID will be miniscule”.

Webster finishes the article by interviewing Deborah Wise Harris, Communications Manager for the Canadian Mental Health Association who was wrongly quoted stating that their group originally opposed euthanasia for mental illness but they have changed their position.

The position of the Canadian Mental Health Association remains opposed to euthanasia for mental illness alone (Link to their position) (Link to a recent interview).

Webster asked difficult questions and interviewed me in a fashion that was not biased. I am pleased that the Lancet were interested in the topic and I am also pleased that the article exposes our concerns with Canada's euthanasia law. 

There are many countries that are currently debating euthanasia. They need to examine Canada's experience with euthanasia, reject the concept of euthanasia and provide caring options not killing options for their citizens.

Alberta man requests (MAiD) euthanasia based on poverty

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Bridge City News published a video report of a Medicine Hat senior who is looking into medical aid in dying because of poverty.

The story concerns Les Landry, a disabled senior who is applying for MAiD because he is living in poverty. When Les turned 65 his disability benefit ended and his seniors benefit began. The problem for Les is that the seniors benefit is lower and it doesn't cover certain expenses that his disability benefit covered. Landry also lives chronic pain and he says that he lacks a quality of life.

I explained to Bridge City News that due to the change in legislation from Bill C-7, passed last year, Landry will possibly be approved for euthanasia.

Bill C-7 created a two-track law. A person whose natural death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has no waiting period, meaning they can apply for death and die the same day, while a person whose natural death is not deemed to be reasonably foreseeable has a 90-day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.

Drew Barnes (MLA) Cypress Medicine Hat told Bridge City News that he has heard of several similar requests for MAiD.

I also explained to Bridge City News that the law requires that two medical or a nurse practitioners would have to agree that Landry's life is not worth living and if the medical or nurse practitioners are willing to do it the law allows them to cause your death.

Landry told Bridge City News that as his situation is right now, he is willing to die.

There have been several stories of Canadians with disabilities dying by euthanasia and many of these stories the decision to be killed was based on poverty.

Links to more stories of the euthanasia experience in Canada:

• Veterans affairs worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD (Link).
• Shopping for doctor death in Canada (Link).
• Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she can't access medical treatment (Link).
• Euthanasia for disability and poverty (Link).
• Euthanasia for Long Covid and poverty (Link).
• Canada's MAiD law is the most permissive in the world. (Link).

Steps to Take If You've Just Been Diagnosed With a Chronic Condition

By Diane Harrison

According to Harvard Health, if you've just been diagnosed with a chronic condition, both your immediate and long-term priorities should shift to reflect your diagnosis. This doesn't mean that you have to spend all of your time worrying about your health. On the contrary, you can work with your medical team, counselor, and social circle to regain your sense of peace as you know you're well cared for. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition invites you to consider taking the following steps if you've been newly diagnosed with a condition that may affect you for months, years, or the rest of your life.

1. Invest in Learning

Your first instinct after receiving a diagnosis of a chronic condition may be to completely ignore your health. While denial may help you cope in the short term, it will not do anything to improve your long-term health. Learn all you can about your condition and strive to educate those close to you as well. For example, if you've been diagnosed with diabetes, explain to your children and spouse that you can never leave home without your insulin case or wallet. Your family may be able to help you remember to grab it on your way out the door and remind you when it's time to take it.

Develop a good working relationship with your physician and other members of your medical team. If you feel that you can't communicate with your doctor, don't be afraid to switch. Stick to a schedule for your medication and supplements as well. If you're not in the habit of taking medication, learning how to manage even one pill a day can be tricky. Set an alarm on your phone or another device to remind you to take your pill or inject a medication so you avoid missing a crucial dose.

2. Focus on Relaxation

Blooming Mindfulness notes that stress can be a contributing factor to flare-ups in chronic conditions. For example, if you've noticed that your rheumatoid arthritis worsens during intense periods of stress such as school finals, family conflict, or your children's behavioral issues, make it a priority to learn how to reduce your stress load. Consider dropping responsibilities that are not necessary. If you’re self-employed, it can be difficult to find time for relaxation, so make it a point to take time off, socialize, and get outdoors.

Use make-ahead meals to get your family through a busy week, and meditate or listen to music while you focus on your breath. Boost your mood by keeping a clutter-free home, letting in more natural light, and adding some indoor plants.

You can also find ways to make your backyard more conducive to relaxation and time spent outside by turning your yard into an outdoor oasis. With a new patio, flower gardens, potted plants, windchimes and the like, it can be a haven after a tough day. You can even work with a patio landscaping professional to get the results you want that fit your budget. Just be sure to look for reputable contractors who get glowing reviews.

3. Ask a Counselor for Help

It's important to be aware of your mental state and practice being kind to yourself throughout the process of adjusting to a new normal. Even if you feel that you're managing just fine without speaking to a mental health professional, it can be worth your time to talk to someone who specializes in helping people with chronic conditions. A licensed counselor, therapist, social worker, or psychologist will be able to provide clarity and reasonable hope for those who have been diagnosed with chronic medical conditions. A psychiatrist can prescribe antidepressants and anti-anxiety pills if you need them to cope with this big transition.

Being diagnosed with a chronic condition can be scary and overwhelming. It may be encouraging to focus on the aspects of your daily life that you can control. Reach out to those who care for you, including your medical team, for help navigating through uncertainty, and don't be afraid to see a qualified counselor as you sort through your feelings about living with a long-term medical condition.

Euthanasia is not a hypothetical "Slippery Slope", but a Clear and Present Danger

Gordon Friesen reponds to an article by Dr Douglas Heinrichs titled: The Case for Medical Aid in Dying (Part 3). Friesen is a disabled man who has closely followed the euthanasia debate and is now President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

By Gordon Friesen

From the very beginning of the assisted suicide debate, the elephant in the room has always been the so-called "disability community", because this very diverse group contains large numbers of people who would logically be eligible for MAID; many of whom have followed the question closely; who understand first-hand the reality of medical suffering; and who are, in an overwhelming majority, opposed to the legalization of assisted death.

Quite simply: No one has been able to explain why a special exception to the protections of the criminal code should be made for people who want no such thing.

I use the word "protections" because that is what the homicide prohibitions really are (or rather were): no person might be killed or assisted to kill themselves by another, and no person might suffer from another's suicidal suggestion.

Removing those protections from any specific group, is like removing the life-preserver from selected boating enthusiasts. Their lives become more dangerous.

Now it is possible that a special and dangerous accommodation be made for people who understand the risk and claim it as a lucid privilege. However, in the present case, this also involves imposing that same risk, upon a much larger number of people against their will.

Clearly, this is an important contradiction that should be taken seriously. But nothing of the sort has been done.

To blithely claim that there can be effective safeguards is simply ridiculous. The life-preserver IS the boater's "safeguard". And that is what has been removed.

It is at once interesting and distressing to see how numerous persons have attempted to rationalize these facts in order to support their own fixed prejudice in favour of assisted death.

In order to avoid charges of Straw Man arguments, I will take as an example the specific words of Douglas W. Heinrichs, an American psychiatrist who wrote the article: The Case for Medical Aid in Dying (Part 3). that was published by the Psychiatric Times on September 6, 2022.

Tellingly, in his series of three articles, the disabled arguments were reserved for the "Slippery Slope" section, which is to say: fears of hypothetical difficulties which may or may not arise in the future.

Heinrichs is therefore implicitly stating that the disabled person does not experience direct harm from legalization; that their misgivings are currently imaginary. Heinrichs wrote:

"Spokespersons for the disability community have raised concerns that if MAID were extended to individuals based on pain, suffering, or dignity-depriving dysfunction, it could lead to a judgment that individuals with disabilities have lives not worth living and result in pressure for those individuals to request MAID."

On the contrary! Legalization of MAID does not "lead to" anything. The offer of assisted death to people living with severe medical conditions is a RESULT of a preexisting judgment ("that such individuals have lives not worth living"). For if the political majority did not think such lives were worthless, the option of assisted death would never have been created for them in the first place.

What MAID really does is create a conduit for the actualization of that prejudice. The harms, therefore, are not hypothetical, but real and immediate.

As for "pressure to request MAID", Heinrichs on several occasions uses phrases like "undue influence" and "excessive external pressure" to which the potential MAiD client should not be subject. But why the adjectives? Is there a pressure to die that is NOT excessive?

Clearly, for Dr. Heinrichs, there must exist a category of "reasonable" suicidal suggestion.

And that of course, is the whole point: from the moment that assisted death is legalized, one specific group of people is exposed to the dangers of suicidal suggestion. And that group is targeted, not because they want to be, but because a widely held atavistic prejudice declares that they SHOULD be.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal
http://www.euthanasiediscussion.net/ (français)
http://euthanasiadiscussion.com/ (english site in development) http://hopeandfree.com/ (personal philosophical musings) 

Canada's MAiD law. The philosophical right to die is colliding with troubling decisions.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Scott Shackford published on September 7 by reason.com, a site that promotes free minds and free markets, challenges Canada's current euthanasia regime. Shackford doesn't oppose euthanasia but he states that when the government runs the system, the right of citizens to end their own suffering can be twisted to serve the state.

Shackford begins by explaining how he believes that euthanasia allows for individuals to control their body. I suggest that he is philosophically wrong since MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) requires the involvement of another person, usually a medical practitioner, to be directly involved with ending a person's life. Shackford is stating in the article how the philosophical right to die argument is colliding with troubling decisions. Shackford writes:

Unfortunately, the philosophical argument for the right to die can also end up colliding with troubling decisions in a country where the government funds and controls access to healthcare. That is reportedly happening in Canada, where some citizens say health officials are actively encouraging people with disabilities and other chronic medical issues to consider suicide.

According to the Associated Press, hospitals are raising the possibility of assisted suicide with patients who hadn't asked about it. These conversations are not motivated by quality of life but health care costs.

Shackford recounts the Roger Foley experience to illustrate his point.

Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

"Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."

Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Shackford then explains that a 2017 study indicated that Canada's universal healthcare system would save between 34 to 136.8 million dollars per year through the use of euthanasia. Shackford suggests that healthcare savings is one of the reaons euthanasia is promoted.

Shackford recounts the story of Alan Nichols whose family believes was not of sound mind when he requested and died by euthanasia in 2019. Shackford writes:

Last June, the Medical Assistance in Dying Committee heard from Trish Nichols, whose suicidal and severely mentally ill brother Alan was given assisted death at a Chilliwack, B.C., hospital in 2019, at a time when MAID was still limited only to Canadians with a terminal illness.

Alan had been taken by his family to the hospital only days before to recover from a psychiatric episode, and in the minutes before he received a lethal injection, Trish described Alan screaming uncontrollably, despite the hospital's assurances that he had opted for a medically assisted death while "of sound mind."

Remember, Shackford believes in individual freedom. Shackford concludes:

In absence of significant "freedom" to pursue individualized health care options, Canada is now potentially violating citizens' rights in the exact opposite direction than it was before. People have the right to die but also the right to continue living in the face of medical adversity. That Canada's publicly-operated health care system is unable to efficiently meet the needs of citizens makes all these health worker interactions about euthanasia inherently suspect.

Shackford's philosophical concepts are debatable, but his conclusion that Canada is potentially violating citizens' rights in the exact opposite direction is absolutely correct. Many people with disabilities are considering death by euthanasia because they are unable to obtain the necessary treatment to live or they are living in such poverty that death appears to be the better option.

Uruguay Health Committee approves euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Uruguay

The Uruguay Lower House Health Committee passed a euthanasia bill on September 6. The bill still needs to be debated and voted-on by the whole Lower House. According to a Mercopress report:

The Health Committee of Uruguay's Lower House has passed a bill approving euthanasia. The body is now to debate the issue in a plenary session, probably next month, it was reported in Montevideo.

The article suggests that the bill is restrictive but the language in the article indicates that the bill is actually very loose. The Mercopress articles states:

“Any person of legal age, psychically fit, who suffers from one or more chronic, incurable and irreversible pathologies or health conditions that seriously undermine their quality of life, causing them unbearable suffering, has the right to be euthanized at their request and through the procedure established in the present law, so that their death takes place in a painless, peaceful and respectful way to their dignity”

The phrase "suffers from one or more chronic, incurable and irreversible pathologies or health conditions that seriously undermine their quality of life" will specifically permit euthanasia for people with disabilities or other chronic conditions. This law seems to be based on a eugenic philosophy that some lives are not worth living.

The article also states that the person must be approved by two doctors and it requires a three day waiting period. 

It is interesting that the article states that if the second doctor rejects the euthanasia request that a third doctor could be consulted, but if the third doctor also rejects the euthanasia request then the euthanasia will not happen.

Uruguay needs to study the experience with euthanasia in Canada and then reject it. Canada's has quickly become the most permissive euthanasia regime in the world.

Judge agrees: California assisted suicide law violates the conscience rights of doctors.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha for the Central District of California ruled that California Senate Bill 380, which passed last year to amend the End of Life Option Act that legalized assisted suicide in California violates the First Amendment rights of doctors by requiring them to participate in assisted suicide. 

Aenlle-Rocha also granted a preliminary injunction barring the state from compelling health care providers to document a patient’s request for assisted suicide.

An article by Mimi Nguyen Ly that was published by the Epoch Times stated:

The original 2015 law allowed a patient to receive drugs to end their life if two doctors certify that the patient has six or fewer months to life and is mentally competent to make the decision, and if the patient has verbally requested the life-ending drugs on two occasions at least 15 days apart, as well as later providing a written request and confirming their intention to die by signing a form 48 hours before self-ingesting the life-ending drugs.

SB 380 allowed patients to make the two verbal requests for the life-ending drugs at least 48 hours apart—that is, 2 days instead of 15 days—and eliminated the written request and the final attestation.

SB 380 required a doctor who opposes assisted suicide to document a request for assisted suicide and that request was considered the first of two of the required requests. Therefore doctors who oppose assisted suicide were required to participate in the act.

The Judge agreed that the law required doctors who oppose assisted suicide to participate in the law. Nguyen Ly reported:

Aenlle-Rocha noted in his ruling on Sept. 2: “The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide.

The judge wrote that the Christian doctors “have demonstrated they are likely to suffer a violation of a constitutional right absent an injunction,” and have established that “they are likely to succeed on their Free Speech claim” because the documentation requirement under SB 380 “exceeds merely managing medical records—it imposes an affirmative documentation requirement.”

The case has not ended, but this decision is a great victory for conscience rights. Judge Aenlle-Rocha recognized that SB 380 violated the rights of physicians who oppose assisted suicide and he granted an injunction to prevent the egregious parts of the law from forcing physicians to participate in assisted suicide.

Last April a California federal judge also rejected a case designed to permit euthanasia within California's assisted suicide act. Lonny Shavelson, a doctor that solely focuses on assisted suicide and Sandra Morris, who lives with ALS, argued that the state's assisted suicide law discriminated against people who had difficulty self-ingesting the lethal assisted suicide drugs and to remedy the situation the state needed to permit euthanasia (lethal injection) in those cases. (Link to the decision)

Maria Dinzeo reported on June 22 for the Court House News Service that:

A federal judge said he cannot allow an Americans with Disabilities Act carve out to California’s assisted suicide law that would let doctors assist people too weak or disabled to ingest end-of-life medication, finding that such a provision would “fundamentally alter” the law from conferring the ability to take your own life to having a doctor do it for you.

In the past few months a judge refused to permit euthanasia as part of the California assisted suicide law and another judge agreed that forcing physicians who oppose assisted suicide to participate in the act is a violation of their rights.

Link to articles on the California assisted suicide law.

• California 2021 assisted suicide report. 486 reported deaths (Link). 
• Judge rejects challenge to legalize euthanasia within California assisted suicide law (Link).
• California doctors group launches court case for conscience rights (Link).
  

What does the future hold for the disabled when euthanasia is legal?

This article was published by Bioedge on September 6, 2022.

By Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet

As the cartoon above suggests, disability activists fear that euthanasia could become a cheaper option for medical care. In a position paper published by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, in the UK, a Canadian expert in disability studies contends that “While the expansion of [euthanasia and assisted suicide] has been motivated by a desire to end suffering and respect autonomy, in doing so we have created significant risk to disabled persons in a world which largely sees their lives as less valuable, as ones of inevitable suffering and as not worth living.”

Professor Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship, believes that a “quiet eugenics” becomes more acceptable when euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) have been legalised. In many countries, children with Down syndrome are already being aborted after pre-natal testing. In Belgium and the Netherlands, neo-natal euthanasia is technically illegal but permitted in some circumstance. Professor Stainton says that “Significant numbers of these cases involve neonates with non-life threatening, medically treatable conditions and disabilities.”

He cites studies of the ableist attitudes in the medical profession. One recent survey found that 82% of practicing physicians in the US believed that “people with significant disability have worse quality of life than non-disabled people”. This makes “unbiased practice of EAS with regards to disabled individuals … highly questionable,” he writes.

Attitudes towards the disabled ignore what scholars called “the disability paradox” – that “many with persistent and serious disabilities report that they experience anywhere between a good to an excellent quality of life”. But people with an ableist bias are unable to appreciate that.

To return to the message of the cartoon, Professon Stainton writes that “A key concern of the disability community is that people will seek access to EAS because they are unable to secure the degree or types of disability supports and accommodations they need to live a full and meaningful life.”

What does the future hold for the disabled in countries with EAS? Professor Stainton fears that broad public support for “mercy killings” will create a climate in which parents will be able to have disabled children euthanised. “It is also not inconceivable that families with decision-making control or influence will choose EAS for their children when faced with insurmountable barriers to securing appropriate supports.”

The Cartoon was created by Amy Hasbrouck, a Board Member of Not Dead Yet, and Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, a project of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and past President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Euthanasia promoting doctor admits that safeguards fail.

When safeguards fail, in the case of euthanasia, it means that someone has wrongfully died.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week, the Psychiatric Times published Part 2 of his series of articles titled: The Case for Medical Aid in Dying. by Dr Douglas Heinrichs.

In Part 2 Hendrichs responds to the arguement against MAiD concerning the consequences of legalization. Hendricks, who supports euthanasia, doesn't actually analyse the opposition to killing based on consequences but rather he examines the issues of safeguards and whether or not euthanasia undermines other policy priorities.

For those who oppose euthanasia, among other things, we oppose giving government, or another groups, such as physicians and nurses, the right in law to kill. This is the same reason that many people oppose capital punishment. Essentially opposition to MAiD is based on the belief that no group or individual should have the right in law to kill people.

It is interesting that Hendrichs acknowledges that "safeguards" fail. Hendrichs states:

This is not to say that every effort should not be made, both in formulating MAID legislation and fine-tuning it once it is enacted, to optimize safeguards that are effective as well as practical. But such safeguards will never be perfect. All laws about anything result in some instances in which the outcome is other than what the law intends.

Hendrichs is correct, but unlike other circumstances, MAiD is the intentional killing of a person. If the "safeguard" fails, it doesn't mean, as one of his examples state, that a person who is not disabled collects disability benefits, but rather it means that the person is dead.

Hendrichs then states:

Models designed to project risk and harm can be useful to consider, but they are notoriously unreliable, given that they always involve a host of assumptions that are only approximately true in the real world. As fallible human beings, the best we are likely to do is to make reasonable attempts to provide sensible safeguards and be prepared to fine-tune over time as experience accumulates. This is the equivalent of post-marketing reports of adverse effects with a new therapeutic agent.

I think that Hendrichs is correct but once again, with MAiD, when fallible human beings wrongly kill someone, that person is now dead. This is precisely why drug companies are expected to spend millions of dollars on research to ensure that the public will not expericne adverse effects of a new therapeutic agent. Nonetheless, if the therapeutic agent caused the recipients to die, the agent would hopefully be stopped.

Hendrichs, in part 1, argues that people who oppose MAiD usually do so from a religious point of view. Many people come from many different points of view nonetheless what unifies people who oppose MAiD is the belief that the government or a group of people, must not have the right in law to kill.

My life became less safe after Canada has legalized euthanasia.

Globe and Mail Editorial - No to euthanasia for mental disorders

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Euthanasia for mental disorders has become a hotly debated issue as Canada approaches March 2023, when the moratorium on euthanasia for mental disorders will be lifted and permitted.

The Globe and Mail, Canada's leading national newspaper, published an editorial on September 1, 2022 titled: Medical assistance in dying is a right that needs more limits. Technically speaking, (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada is not a right, nonetheless the editorial opposes Canada's current legislation which will permit euthanasia for mental disorders alone.

The editorial begins with a fictional story of a 70-year-old woman who is living with major depressive and post-traumatic stress disorders and asks the question whether or not this woman should be approved for a medically assisted death. The editorial states that this story is one of the scenario's considered in the final report of the Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness. The report does not suggest what should happen to the 70-year-old woman, nonetheless the report does conclude that no changes are needed to Canada's current euthanasia law when it permits euthanasia for mental disorders alone.

The Editorial explains:

Parliament amended the MAID law to create two tracks, one for applicants whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable, and a second, with enhanced safeguards including a 90-day waiting period, for those whose deaths are not. Of 10,064 assisted deaths last year, 219, or 2.2 per cent, followed track two.

Track two would have been open to patients whose only illness is mental, but Parliament excluded applications of that kind for two years to allow for further study. The exception expires next March; a joint committee of the House and Senate has until October to report on the issue.

Starting in March 2023 euthanasia for mental illness will likely be permitted with a 90-day waiting period.

The Editorial provides the position of those who support and those who oppose euthanasia for mental illness. It states:

Backers also say Canadian doctors are sure to tread carefully, much like their Dutch counterparts, who reject more than 90 per cent of euthanasia applications for psychiatric suffering. Such cases have increased in the Netherlands nonetheless, to 88 in 2020 from two in 2010.

As psychiatrist John Maher put it to the Parliamentary committee, “the rallying cry is autonomy at all costs. But the inescapable cost is people dying who would get better. What number of mistaken guesses is acceptable to you?”

The editorial does not point out that the Netherlands euthanasia protocols require a person who requests euthanasia for mental disorders alone to try effective treatments over a one year period.

The editorial concludes by stating that a Quebec government committee rejected euthanasia for mental disorders and the federal government has time to do the same.

More information on this topic:

• Canada 2021 euthanasia report. More than 10,000 euthanasia deaths representing 3.3% of all deaths (Link).  
• MAiD for mental illness and poverty (Link). 
• Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying law is the most permissive in the world (Link). 
• Euthanasia panel member quit. Proposals don't adequately protect people with mental illness (Link). 
• Offering euthanasia to suicidal people leads to premature deaths (Link). 
• No clear guidelines in report concerning euthanasia for mental illness (Link). 
• Euthanasia for mental illness. Killing people with an uncertain prognosis (Link).
  

Euthanasia, disability and poverty in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Simon Spichak that was published by the Daily Beast and republished by Yahoo News on August 30 examines the issus of long covid, poverty and disability in relation to euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada.

Tracey Thompson is interviewed about her experience with long covid, her difficulty with applying for disability benefits and her Go Fund Me page to help her live not die by euthanasia.

“I won’t be able to maintain housing and I’m not well enough to live on the street,” Thompson told The Daily Beast. With money running low, and no cure for long COVID in the crosshairs, she has applied for medical assistance in dying, or MAiD. “I don’t understand how a society that supposedly has universal health care gets an international reputation for taking care of its citizenry, when that is obviously not true for poor, disabled people.”

The article then explains how Bill C-7, passed in March 2021, made MAiD available to people with chronic conditions, such as Thompson. Spichak wrote:

The pool of eligible applicants has grown significantly since then. MAiD legislation was amended in March 2021, allowing people with intolerable and irreversible illness, disease or disability (called “Track Two”) to qualify—though without introducing substantial improvements to social assistance programs. “Publicly, the data around Track Two requests have not been reported in a meaningful way,” Dosani said. “In public discourse on social media, the media, and some of my own experiences, I have seen people with disabilities who are talking about pursuing MAiD.”

Spichak concludes his article by stating how MAiD has become an option for people with disabilities who live in poverty. Spichak writes:

We’re learning more and more each day that long COVID and other post-viral conditions pose a risk to seemingly anyone—which will force more and more people to rely on inadequate disability payments, dwindling savings, and crowdfunding to treat manageable conditions. When that runs out, their lack of viable options may force them to seek MAiD—not out of choice, but out of grim necessity.

Links to more stories of the euthanasia experience in Canada:

• Veterans affairs worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD (Link).
• Shopping for doctor death in Canada (Link).
• Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she can't access medical treatment (Link).
• Euthanasia for disability and poverty (Link).
• Euthanasia for Long Covid and poverty (Link).
• Canada's MAiD law is the most permissive in the world. (Link).

Canadian veteran who was urged to seek (MAiD) euthanasia was not the only one.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Colby Cosh who writes for the National Post, published an update on August 30 to the story of the Veterans Affairs Canada worker who advocated euthanasia for PTSD. 

    Article: Veterans Affairs Canada worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD (Link).

Cosh, who does not oppose MAiD, wrongly states that euthanasia is a form of medical treatment under Canadian law. In fact euthanasia was legalized in Canada as an exception to homicide in the criminal code. Nonetheless, Cosh colates the information concerning the Veteran with PTSD who was urged to ask for euthanasia by the Veterans Affairs worker. Cosh writes:

A couple of weeks ago, Global News shocked the conscience of the country with a news item about a suffering Canadian combat survivor who called into Veterans Affairs to talk about medical treatment and was given an unexpected, unwanted lecture about assisted suicide. According to Global’s initial report, the man was recovering from a brain injury suffered on duty, along with post-traumatic stress. But he was also improving mentally and physically, and so was surprised and discouraged when he was asked whether he had thought about killing himself with a doctor’s help.

Global has not identified the veteran, but in the days after the original story broke, its reporters continued to tack on dreadful new details. On August 16, Global had said the man was “casually” offered help in seeking medically assisted death. By the 19th the network had learned that the Veterans Affairs agent had brought up euthanasia “repeatedly” and persisted even after being asked to shut up about it. The caseworker had also boasted, it is said, about helping another combat veteran obtain assisted suicide, and added that such a death was “better than blowing his brains out all over the wall or driving his car into something.”

Notice that the caseworker had also boasted about helping another combat veteran obtain assisted suicide.

Cosh explains the Veterans Affairs Canada responded by launching an investigation into the story. Cosh then analyzes this story with respect to people experiencing suicidal ideation. Cosh writes:

The harm done to Global’s veteran by the mention of an assisted suicide option seems like something that is awfully hard to control in practice. Of course people speaking for a “Veterans Affairs” department should not actively try to literally harangue clients to death. But are we going to begin to have different rules for different groups who are exposed to a high risk of suicide? It’s worth remembering that military personnel are not the only occupational group that have this feature. There are several trades known to have something like double the background risk of suicide, and for men altogether out of work it is higher than that.

Commenting about the outrage with respect to a Canadian Veteran who served Canada and is now experiencing suicidal ideation cannot be fully understood outside of the context of the many people with disabilities, who are also living in poverty, who have died by euthanasia (MAiD) because they are lacking the necessary medical and social supports.

Canada's euthanasia law has gone out-of-control and it needs to be honestly reviewed and yet the current government is not actually reviewing it, but proposing expansions of it.

Links to more stories of the euthanasia experience in Canada:

• Veterans affairs worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD (Link).
• Shopping for doctor death in Canada (Link).
• Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she can't access medical treatment (Link).
• Euthanasia for disability and poverty (Link).
• Euthanasia for Long Covid and poverty (Link).
• Canada's MAiD law is the most permissive in the world. (Link).

Baby declared "brain dead" begins to breath on his own.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Harrison was declared brain dead as a baby

Several countries are considering changes to brain death protocols to make it easier to declare someone brain dead.

An article by Sadiya Chowdhury published last week by Sky News stated that a senior doctor was "shocked" when a baby started breathing on his own two weeks after being declared brain stem dead after two tests. According to the article:

On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later.

The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute.

In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing.

Lewis Roberts

The doctor had stated that none of them had seen this before. Chowdhury also reported also on the case of Lewis Roberts who was declared brain dead and then recoverd.

In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball.

Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon.

"They rushed it through," she said.

"Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time."

The article states that a doctor told the High Court that there is a problem with brain stem testing. Chowdhury reported the doctor as saying: 

"Brain injuries need time to assess fully, to understand what is permanent damage and what is temporary"

An article about Harrison Ellmer was published in the Daily Mail in October 2015. Harrison was declared brain dead when he was three weeks old. He is three years old in the above picture.

There are plans to change the Uniform Determination of Death Act to align the law with the current practise. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that the proposals will lead to more people being declared brain dead for the purposes of organ donation. Lewis Roberts was hours away from having his organs extracted but now he is well enough to play football and basketball.