When is euthanasia justified?

The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, published an excellent article by Margaret Somerville yesterday.

The article asks the rhetorical question, When is euthanasia justified?

Somerville answers the question with the reality of the practice of euthanasia in other jurisdictions.

Somerville stated:
Francine Lalonde's private member's bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide will be back in Parliament tomorrow.

For millennia, euthanasia (a word I use to include assisted suicide) has been considered morally and legally unjustifiable. People who oppose euthanasia still believe it's inherently wrong – it can't be morally justified and even compassionate motives don't make it ethically acceptable.

But what are the attitudes of pro-euthanasia advocates regarding whether its use needs to be justified, were it to be legalized? And, if justifications are required, what are they?

People who would accept euthanasia, but only in some circumstances, usually limit its access to people who are terminally ill, in serious unrelievable pain and suffering, and require that euthanasia be used as a last resort. These limitations show these people believe each case of euthanasia needs moral justification to be ethically acceptable.

But although the need for euthanasia to relieve pain and suffering is the justification given, and the one the public accepts in supporting its legalization, research shows that dying people request euthanasia far more frequently because of fear of social isolation and of being a burden on others, than pain. So, should avoiding loneliness or being a burden count as a sufficient justification?

Recently, some pro-euthanasia advocates have gone further, arguing that respect for people's rights to autonomy and self-determination means competent adults have a right to die at a time of their choosing, and the state has no right to prevent them from doing so. In other words, if euthanasia were legalized, the state has no right to require a justification for its use by competent, freely consenting adults.

For example, they believe an elderly couple, where the husband is seriously ill and the wife healthy, should be allowed to carry out their suicide pact. As Ruth von Fuchs, head of the Right to Die Society of Canada, stated, “life is not an obligation.” But although Ms. von Fuchs thought the wife should have an unfettered right to assisted suicide, she argued that it would allow her to avoid the suffering, grief and loneliness associated with losing her husband – that is, she articulated a justification.

We can see this same trend toward not requiring a justification – or, at least, nothing more than that's what a competent person over a certain age wants to do – in the Netherlands. Last month, a group of older Dutch academics and politicians launched a petition in support of assisted suicide for the over-70s who [ OMIT are] “consider their lives complete” and want to die. They quickly attracted more than 100,000 signatures, far more than needed to get the issue debated in parliament under citizens' initiative legislation.

And what about avoiding health-care costs as a justification? Although this question has largely been dodged – one could say “religiously” – by pro-euthanasia advocates, euthanasia could be used as a cost-saving measure, and is likely to be if legalized.

Half of the lifetime health-care costs of the average person are incurred in the last six months of the person's life. Euthanasia would be a way to implement a “reasonably well or dead” approach – sometimes referred to as “squaring the curve” of health decline at the end of life, so the person drops precipitously from being reasonably well to dead – which would avoid those costs.

The medical authority of the U.S. state of Oregon – where physician-assisted suicide is legal – seems to have adopted this approach. Shortly before he died this month, Montreal journalist Hugh Anderson wrote in The Gazette that Oregon “has acknowledged that when it turns down an application to cover the cost of an expensive new drug, it sends out simultaneously a reminder that the state's assisted suicide program is available at an affordable cost.” As Mr. Anderson noted, “What a great way to put a crimp in medical costs. Have the patients kill themselves when the cost of keeping us alive gets too high.”

The Netherlands' 30-year experience with euthanasia shows clearly the rapid expansion, in practice, of what is seen as an acceptable justification for euthanasia.

Initially, euthanasia was limited to terminally ill, competent adults, with unrelievable pain and suffering, who repeatedly asked for euthanasia and gave their informed consent to it. Now, none of those requirements necessarily applies, in some cases not even in theory and, in others, not in practice.

For instance, parents of severely disabled babies can request euthanasia for them, 12- to 16-year-olds can obtain euthanasia with parental consent and those over 16 can give their own consent. More than 500 deaths a year, where the adult was incompetent or consent not obtained, result from euthanasia. And late middle-aged men (a group at increased risk for suicide) may be using it as a substitute for suicide.

Indeed, one of the people responsible for shepherding through the legislation legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands recently admitted publicly that doing so had been a serious mistake, because, she said, once legalized, euthanasia cannot be controlled. In other words, justifications for it expand greatly, even to the extent that simply a personal preference “to be dead” will suffice.

Legalizing euthanasia causes death and dying to lose the moral context within which they must be viewed. Maintaining that moral context is crucial in light of an aging population and scarce and increasingly expensive health-care resources, which will present us with increasingly difficult ethical decisions.

Link to the article in the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/when-is-euthanasia-justified/article1499212/

Dutch petition to permit the killing by euthanasia of healthy people over 70 gets 100,000 signatures

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article that was published in the Daily Telegraph stated that a lobby group has got 100,000 signatures demanding that the Dutch government allow euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who are over the age of 70 for any and all reasons "tired of living".

The Dutch euthanasia lobby has been pushing for euthanasia for those who are "tired of living" as their "final solution" for many years. 

When I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto in September 2006, the leader of the NVVE - Dutch euthanasia society, stated that he was concerned that activism on the part of the euthanasia lobby should be discouraged because it would prevent their group from achieving the final goal - euthanasia for those who are "tired of living." At the same conference Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr. Death, asked the question, why should we not have euthanasia available to those who are "tired of living."

My mom turns 70 this year. She is a great dutch woman and she has always put other people ahead of herself in life. Women like her should never be told, even subtly, that they are "better off dead".

Our mothers continue to want the best for us, even after we have grown up. It would be easy to convince some of them that death is preferable than living with special needs. These women will feel that by agreeing to euthanasia they are doing "what is best for their children".

Oh by the way - It would be a free choice for these elderly women? Bull! This is the prime example of how choice is a lie and assisted suicide and euthanasia are a "recipe for elder abuse." In this case, choice is simply a slogan and not a reality.

The 100,000 people who signed the petition urging the government to allow "doctors" to lethally inject or provide lethal doses to our elderly mothers should be ashamed of themselves. They represent the most uncaring, self-centred, group of people that have ever lived.

This whole concept is based on a few academics who philosophically believe that death is the ultimate freedom. They really don't care that their philosophy threatens the lives of the many so the few white wealthy academics can say - "I am free".

It is bad enough that they allow euthanasia in general, but to simply say - "Oh by the way I am tired of living, give me the Kool-Aid" is ridiculous at best.

Link to the article at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7414590/Dutch-plan-to-let-healthy-elderly-people-commit-suicide.html

True Compassion Advocates - Press Advisory - Washington State Assisted Suicide Report

Press Advisory
True Compassion Advocates

One Year Anniversary Protest - March 3rd, 2010

Protest of Assisted Suicide law to be held Friday, March 5th at University of Washington Medical Center

The first anniversary of the implementation of Washington's Death With Dignity Act is Friday, March 5th. A supportive care demonstration will gather in front of the UW Medical Center to protest the legalization of assisted suicide. From 12 noon to 1pm, protestors will line the sidewalk near the front of the hospital at 1959 N.E. Pacific Street.

According to Eileen Geller, RN, BSN, President of True Compassion Advocates, protestors will "stand in solidarity with seniors, people with disabilities, and other victims of the 'collateral damage' caused by legalizing assisted suicide in this state."

Over 52 Washingtonians have died under the Death with Dignity Act since the law was implemented. There were a total of 80 requests for assisted suicide, and 72 lethal drug overdoses dispensed, according to the March 2, 2010 statistics from Washington State Department of Health. Of the 80 requests, only four people received psychiatric consults assessing them for untreated clinical depression, a common problem among those with serious and chronic illnesses. Geller stated that: "I can only hope all the reported assisted suicides were not the result of untreated depression or someone else's choice." She added: "Unfortunately, given the flimsy reporting standards and potentially coercive provisions of the DWD Act, there is no way to know for sure."

The TCA president believes the overall number of people adversely affected by the Act is much higher than the official count of assisted suicides gathered by DOH. In the last year, her organization has received increasing reports of 'the collateral damage' from the DWDA, including calls about seniors who feel increased pressure to commit suicide or assisted suicide. They have also heard from health care professionals worried about vulnerable adults being adversely impacted by the "duty to die" climate fostered by the Act.

Geller, a longtime hospice nurse, stated: "These calls are an indicator of abuse. I've spoken to patients for whom this pressure is very real. With the rates of elder abuse and financial exploitation climbing, Washington's legalization of assisted suicide has created increased stress on vulnerable adults. With state budget cuts and a tough economy, the 'choice,' promised by the Death With Dignity Act, quickly becomes illusory."

"The need for creating and maintaining in our communities assisted suicide-free 'safe harbors' has never been greater," Geller emphasized. Hospitals, such as the UW, which 'opted in' to allowing assisted suicide in their facilities, along with nursing homes and adult family homes, are hearing from patients, families, and community members. They are saying that they want safe, competent care, but not assisted suicide," she stressed.

Link to the press advisory: http://www.truecompassionadvocates.org/press9.html

Washington State "Death with Dignity" Statistics are Consistent with Elder Abuse; No Recourse for Elders.

The Washington State Department of Health has released its first annual report for Washington's Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted via a voters' initiative in 2008. The Act, which legalized assisted suicide, went into effect on March 5, 2009. A copy of the report can be viewed here: http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/DWDA_2009.pdf

According to the report, lethal prescriptions intended to kill people were dispensed to 63 individuals. The majority were 65 years old or older, and educated. Nearly half had private insurance. These factors are consistent with their being individuals with money. Older people with money are prime targets of abuse. See Met Life Study on Elder abuse at: http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf

According to the report, 23% took this step due a concern about being a "burden." This is a marker of possible abuse because the person was pressured to feel that way.

Washington's Act is, regardless, coercive: An heir who will benefit from the death, is allowed to help the person sign up for the lethal dose; there is no requirement of consent at the time of death. See: Margaret Dore, "Death with Dignity: What do we Tell our Clients?," Washington State Bar News, July 2009. http://wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/jul-09+deathwithdignity.htm .

After the death, even prosecutors are required to treat the death (voluntary or not) as "Natural." http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/MEsAndCoroners.pdf. Elders abused by the Act have no recourse.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
1-877-439-3348

Margaret Dore
Attorney at law – Seattle Washington
www.margaretdore.com

2009 Annual Oregon Physician Assisted Suicide Report: “More Conspiracy and Control”

Physicians for Compassionate Care

Education Foundation

P.O. Box 6042

Portland Oregon 97228

(503) 533-8154; www.pccef.org

Press Release
March 4, 2010

2009 Annual Physician Assisted Suicide Report: “More Conspiracy and Control”

The annual report from the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) regarding Oregon physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for the 2009 year was released March 3, 2010. (1)

It reports that 95 prescriptions were written in 2009 by 55 doctors, resulting in 59 PAS deaths in 2009. In the 12 years from 1998 to 2009, there have been 460 reported PAS deaths in Oregon.

PCCEF is concerned with several areas of the DHS report for the 2009 year.

● The report is very brief, consisting of a two-page summary report and a 2 ½ page Table. This is not consistent with the “surveillance” responsibility of the DHS regarding assisted suicide in Oregon. There are no true investigations of assisted suicides in Oregon by the DHS. 

● None of the 59 patients was referred for psychiatric evaluation. Over the past three years in Oregon, only 1% (2 of 168) of patients committing assisted suicide were referred for psychiatric evaluation. This is in marked contrast to the report by OHSU researchers in 2008 that 25% of patients requesting assisted suicide were considered to be depressed. (2) This year’s report confirms there is no protection for depressed patients in Oregon. 

● Only 6 of the 59 PAS death patients had “inadequate pain control or concern about it” as an end-of-life concern. As has been reported previously, pain is not a major reason for assisted suicide. 

● The prescribing physician was present at the time of lethal overdose ingestion for only 3 of the 59 deaths, and was present at the time of death for only one patient. Medical details of that time and knowledge of complications for the other 58 patients was obtained second or third-hand. How do we really know what happened in the majority of the deaths? Why are the prescribing physicians not present at this critical time? 

● The median duration of patient-physician relationship was only 9 weeks. Some patients had no prior relationship with the prescribing physician. Many patients have prescriptions for lethal drugs written by other than their personal physician.

One organization is responsible for 97% of the assisted suicide deaths this past year. Compassion & Choices, the assisted-suicide-proponent organization, are authors of Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law and proclaim they are its steward. 78% (359/460) of all Oregon assisted suicide deaths are their cases. In the past two years they have been involved in 92% of Oregon’s assisted suicides. They reported involvement in 53 of 60 deaths in 2008, and in 57 of 59 deaths in 2009. (3) The Oregonian editorial board correctly stated in 2008 that “a coterie of insiders run the [assisted suicide] program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know.” ( 4 ) As is particularly evident for the 2009 year, they control the assisted suicide market; 97% (57 of 59) of physician assisted suicide deaths in 2009 were their cases! As was noted in The Oregonian in 2008 ( 5 ), “the initials ‘C &C’ of this organization more properly reflect its repeated public behavior – that is, ‘Conspiracy and Control’ ” .

Very few doctors are involved in most physician assisted suicides. Oregon Department of Human Service officials reported in 2009 that there were 109 physicians who wrote 271 prescriptions resulting in assisted suicide deaths in the years 2001 to 2007 (6). 165 of the prescriptions were written by 20 physicians, and 62 of these 165 prescriptions were written by only 3 physicians. In other words, 61%of the fatal suicide barbiturate overdose prescriptions were from 18% of the prescribing doctors; and 23% of the fatal suicide prescriptions were from less than 3% of prescribing doctors.

In this same article, the DHS authors expressed concern regarding the “worrisome trend” over the years in the decline in requests for formal psychiatric evaluation, they stated: “the decline in formal evaluation raises concerns that depression remains undiagnosed in some patients who request and receive a prescription under the DWDA.”

Physicians for Compassionate Care Educational Foundation promotes the ethic that all human life has inherent value and that physician-assisted suicide:

● Undermines trust in the patient-physician relationship
● Changes the societal role of the physician from healing to medical killing
● Endangers the value that society places on life, specifically for those who are most vulnerable, those who are frail, elderly, and at the end of life.

References:
1. 2009 Summary of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, March 3, 2010.
http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml.
2. Ganzini, L, Goy ER, Dobscha SK. “Prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients requesting physicians’ aid in dying: cross sectional survey”. British Medical Journal 2008:337:a1682.
3. Personal email from Sue Porter to Kenneth Stevens, February 14, 2010, for the 2009 year data.
4. The Oregonian, “Washington state’s assisted suicide measure: Don’t go there. September 20, 2008, http://oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/09/washington_states_assistedsuic.html.
5. Stevens, KR, and Toffler, WL. “Assisted Suicide: Conspiracy and Control” , Oregonian, 9-24-08, www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/09/assisted_suicide_conspiracy_an.html
6. Hedberg, K, Hopkins, D, Leman, R, Kohn, M. “The 10-Year Experience of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act:1998-2007”, The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Summer 2009; 20:124-132.
© All Rights Reserved
Physicians for Compassionate Care Educational Foundation

The Washington State Department of Health has released the 2009 Death with Dignity Act Report.

The Washington State Death with Dignity statistics stated:
- 63 people received a lethal dose,
- 47 of those people died,
- 36 of them were known to have died from ingesting the lethal dose.
- 7 of them were known to have died a natural death (not ingesting the lethal dose).
- 4 of the people who died, it is unknown whether they died from the lethal dose or not.
- The status of the 16 remaining people who were prescribed a lethal dose is unknown.

The report is consistent with concerns related to elder abuse. Most of the participants were older, educated, many had private insurance. (Report, page 5). All such factors correlate with the decedents having had money. Older people with money are prime targets of abuse. Link to an article concerning elder abuse from
http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf

There is no proof that the persons consented at the time of death. "Consent" not required by the law. Involuntary killing is allowed by the Death with Dignity Act.
Link to an article in the July 2009 edition of the Washington State Bar Association News: http://wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/jul-09+deathwithdignity.htm

The people who died listed their concerns as follows:
- Losing Autonomy - 100%;
- Less able to engage in activities they enjoy - 91%;
- Loss of Dignity - 82%;
- Losing control of bodily functions - 41%
- Inadequate pain control - 25%
- Burden on family, friends/caregivers - 23%
- Financial implications of treatment - 2%

Inadequate pain control was the prime reason voters supported the I-1000 assisted suicide initiative and yet only 25% identified this as a concern.

End of life concerns such as people feel they are a "burden" is a sign of elder abuse in the form of pressure from others to die.

The Death with Dignity Act specifically devalues people with disabilities. The main concerns people have for requesting assisted suicide are disability related concerns.

It is important to note that:
* The actual reason and the social dimension connected to death by assisted suicide is basically unknown.
* Less than 5% (3 out of 63) people who received a lethal dose were referred for a Psychiatric/ Psychological Assessment. Depressed people often appear to be lucid, when they are not lucid.
* There is no follow up after the lethal dose is dispensed, therefore there is no protection for vulnerable people who are being subtly pressured into assisted suicide.
* There is no witness required at the time of death, therefore there is no way to know that the person chose to die by assisted suicide.
* The reports are filed by the physician who prescribed assisted suicide, it is unlikely that a decision to prescribe a lethal dose to a person who did not qualify, under the act, would be divulged. There are no third party investigations or reports.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that voters in Washington State opened a pandora’s box when legalized assisted suicide. We question whether they fully understood the implications of assisted suicide and we have outline how the Act does not protect people from undue pressure from death by assisted suicide.

Link to the report: http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/DWDA_2009.pdf

Peter Fonteece to be sentenced in May

An article published in the Thunder Bay Ontario Chronicle Journal is reporting that Peter Fonteece who pleaded guilty to criminal negligence in connection with his wife‘s suicide in a Thunder Bay hotel room is to be sentenced in May.

As you may remember, when the Fonteece case was first reported, media from across Canada were trying to turn this case into a reason to legalize assisted suicide in Canada. Now the case has ended with Fonteece pleading guilty to a lesser charge of criminal negligence.

Link to my previous blog comment about the Fonteece case:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/02/death-in-thunder-bay-fonteece-case.html

The important quote in this article is:

“Rather, the Crown‘s case is that Peter Fonteece did nothing when, in law, he was required to act.”

The court must, impose a sentence that takes into account the duty family members owe to one another, and shows that society “will not tolerate the inattention or disregard for another family member‘s life, even in circumstances as tragic as those in the life that Peter and Yanisa Fonteece had made for themselves.”

The article stated:

Superior Court Justice Helen Pierce heard sentencing submissions Wednesday from the Crown and defence, then adjourned the matter to May 13, saying she needed time to consider the case.

Crown lawyer David MacKenzie asked for nine months of incarceration, with 18 months of probation to follow. A 10-year weapons prohibition would be “mandatory” under the law given the nature of the offence, he said.

Defence counsel Gil Labine said time served, plus probation, was suitable.

Fonteece‘s 38-year-old wife Yanisa died in February 2009.

According to an agreed statement of facts read into the record in December, Yanisa, who was depressed and had harboured thoughts of suicide for a lengthy period dating back to before she met Fonteece, and Fonteece had left their Waterloo home and headed west in search of a better life.

She had lost her job just before Christmas, while Fonteece has a vision impairment that keeps him from working.

Having no prospects, and estranged families back home, they arrived in Thunder Bay Feb. 2, 2009.

But car trouble prevented them from going any further. The heater malfunctioned and they didn‘t have the money to repair it. Nor did they wish to continue driving without heat in February.

Yanisa rented a room at a hotel, and with her husband at her side committed suicide by ingesting 40-60 sleeping pills.

They had a pact that he wasn‘t to notify anyone, as she wanted to die in peace. Then, he would take his own life.

Fonteece tried no less than five times to kill himself, Labine told court. Having failed, he took it as a sign that he wasn‘t supposed to die.

On Feb. 6, he called 911 and informed the dispatcher that his wife was dead.

Labine told court Wednesday that Fonteece spent about 70 days in custody at Thunder Bay District Jail after his wife‘s death.

He underwent a psychiatric evaluation which revealed no mental health issues. Since his release, Labine said, Fonteece has been living at the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay under conditions, and he‘s not only “lived by the rules,” but has done a great deal of volunteer work for the agency. Labine called him a “poster boy” for the society.

In addition, Fonteece has no criminal record, nor were there any indications he posed any danger to anyone, Labine said.

“His character is that of a very gentle soul,” Labine told court, adding that his wife, too, was of such character.

The pair, he said, was simply trying to make their way through life, and had encountered difficulties which took their toll.

But, Labine said, under the law, Fonteece did commit a crime in allowing his wife‘s suicide to take place.

MacKenzie agreed.

“In rhetorical terms, Mr. Fonteece is not Dr. Kevorkian,” MacKenzie told court. “This is not a case where the Crown can establish that Peter Fonteece did anything either by way of physical act or encouragement or persuasion that led to his wife‘s demise.

“Rather, the Crown‘s case is that Peter Fonteece did nothing when, in law, he was required to act.”

The court must, MacKenzie said, impose a sentence that takes into account the duty family members owe to one another, and shows that society “will not tolerate the inattention or disregard for another family member‘s life, even in circumstances as tragic as those in the life that Peter and Yanisa Fonteece had made for themselves.”

Fonteece, when asked if he had anything to say, told court that his wife did not ask him to call for help or otherwise intervene as she died.

Link to the article in the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal: http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories_local.php?id=245964

Assisted Suicide guidelines in the UK are a dangerous because they are a murderer's charter

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines from the director of public prosecutions in the UK have released. The guidelines are listed at the end of the comment.

The prosecution guidelines are dangerous. They establish the rules that people will follow to be directly and intentionally involved with killing another person. The guidelines falsely

When considering the increase in the incidence of elder abuse and the purpose of the assisted suicide law, which is to protect people from others, it is clear that these guidelines are a recipe for elder abuse that will lead to further abuses of the law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition would consider these guidelines helpful if they were sentencing guidelines. Since there is no minimum sentence for assisted suicide in the UK (or Canada), therefore guidelines, such as these, would help the judge determine the factors that should be considered when sentencing a person who was convicted of assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines list 16 factors that would favour prosecution for assisted suicide in the UK and 6 factors that are deemed to not be in the public interest for prosecution.

Dr Robin Mackenzie, from the University of Kent, stated that rules have to distinguish clearly between assisting someone to die and taking the life of someone in a so-called mercy killing.

Dr MacKenzie argued that under the six factors outlined in the new guidelines there could be problems in finding evidence to justify non-prosecution.

“It is likely to be problematic insofar as the evidence will be provided by the person who claims they assisted suicide,” she said.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Evidence-for-assisted-suicide-could-cause-problems-newsinkent33211.aspx?news=local

While introducing the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines Starmer stated:

"Assessing whether a case should go to court is not simply a question of adding up the public interest factors for and against prosecution and seeing which has the greater number. It is not a tick-box exercise. Each case has to be considered on its own facts and merits."

"As a result of the consultation exercise there have been changes to the policy. But that does not mean prosecutions are more or less likely. The policy has not been relaxed or tightened but there has been a change of focus."

Link to the Prosecution Guidelines:http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html

As much as he is stating that these guidelines will not prevent a person from being prosecuted, he is certainly explaining to lawyers in the UK the line of defense that they will need to follow, if and when prosecutions occur.

Dr Peter Saunders, the director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, said the final rules were an improvement on those published in September. But he added: 'How will a prosecutor decide if someone's motives are wholly compassionate?

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their media release:

The guidelines also make clear that no one who assists a suicide must expect to be prosecuted. It states that “a prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution that outweigh those tending in favour”. In other words, unless there are clear and compelling reasons not to prosecute, you will end up before the courts.

The new guidelines are not without their weaknesses. For example, it is not at all clear how it is to be established in any case of assisted suicide that “the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion” (one of the six factors against prosecution). But their general tenor is one of good sense and they show greater concern for public safety than did the earlier 'interim' version.

Publishing final guidelines is not, however, the end of the matter. It remains to be seen how they will be implemented. The CPS has shown recently, in the case of Kay Gilderdale, that it will not hesitate to prosecute where necessary. What is needed now, to maintain public confidence in the protection of the law, is total transparency of CPS prosecution decisions in cases of assisted suicide.

Link to the response by the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK:http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=876

George Pitcher who comments in a blog that is published in the Telegraph.co.uk was more upbeat about the new assisted suicide prosecution guidelines. He stated:

It's a dark day for the assisted-death lobbyists at Dignity in Dying. Lord Falconer, whose attempt to get assisted suicide legalised in the House of Lords failed last year, will be wobbling with rage that Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has turned out not to be the Law Lords' poodle by undermining the Suicide Act 1961, with his assisted-suicide prosecution policy.

Link to George Pitcher's blog comments: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100027504/rejoice-dpp-deals-severe-blow-to-dignity-in-dyings-hopes-for-assisted-suicide/

The disability perspective was clearly stated by Clair Lewis in her blog under the title: Getting away with murder: Discriminatory how-to guide is a national disgrace. Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet republished Lewis's blog comments and stated - There are many reactions and lots of commentary out there, but by far the best I've read so far is from Clair Lewis:

In an unprecedented move, the Director of Public Prosecutions will release his special guide on how British citizens can aid and abet suicides with his approval.. as long as they only do it to the people he's selected as fit for death.

Helping end someone's life is a crime, which usually carries a 14 year prison sentence, but not so if the corpse is one of someone who was very sick and they were 'asking for it'. In which case, judging by recent news and the killers walking free among us, you get freedom and national hero status.

Now we will all have a neat little guide to help us kill our loved ones right.. to CPS standards. State approved Assisted Suicide Kits aren't available, but then, it takes time to organise given how many hundreds of thousands of very sick people must need their family's 'help'.

A fundamentally ridiculous, contradictory and terrifying belief has taken over society which suggests people can have better equality, or lives by being dead.. or even killed through a discriminatory law made just for us. Impressive work, but very dangerous. Several times lately I have wanted to pinch myself to check if I was dreaming. But no, the DPP is really producing this guide and the public really do think it is different and more acceptable to kill someone who is sick, or to 'assist' their suicide than it would be if it were anyone else. All other suicidal people in this country are entitled to HELP and killings and suicide facilitators are prosecuted heavily.

It's not nice being a disabled person today looking around me, wondering which four in every five citizens is happy to kill a relative.. wondering which four of my five relatives would be happy to kill me. I am living in a country which is happy to make it easier to kill the old and sick, whilst absolutely not caring what the majority of people this law would put at risk have to say on the matter. Even though the scientific evidence (as opposed to the imaginings of most of the British non-disabled public) shows that people concerned don't want or need this law - apart from a very few poster children whose fear, misery and internalised oppression the euthanasia movement are taking advantage of.

Link to the blog comments by disability leader Clair Lewis: http://clairlewis.livejournal.com/17981.html

Alison Davis, the national co-ordinator of the disability rights group in the UK, No Less Human, commented on the case of Kay Gilderdale who pled guilty to aiding the suicide of her daughter Lynn. Davis, who had attempted suicide in the past, stated:

Twenty-five years ago, like Lynn, I decided I wanted to die. It was a settled wish.

Unlike hers, however, my wish to die lasted ten years. During those years I attempted suicide more than once. On occasion, I was treated against my will by doctors, who saved my life. Then, I was angry with them. Now, I’m grateful.

If I had died, I would have missed the best years of my life, though I still have pain, worse now than it was when I wanted to die.

Additionally, no one would ever have known that the future held something better for me, not in terms of physical ability, but in the support and love of friends.

My experience shows that it’s possible to come out on the other side and to demonstrate that life is worth living.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition realizes that the euthanasia lobby will exploit the weaknesses in the prosecution guidelines. We expect that the euthanasia lobby will attempt to undermine the guidelines by exploiting the "hard cases" by supporting "courageous" members to intentionally break the law to test the Prosecution Guidelines and the legal system.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines have left the justice system exposed. The guidelines use vague and misleading terminology to define factors, such as, *the victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide (someone can be subtly pressured) or the perpetrator *was "wholly motivated by compassion" (how could that ever be determined). A good defense lawyer will be able to use these guidelines to further underline the purpose of the law which is to protect people from others who either think they know better, or are carefully taking advantage of a relationship that brings them benefit.

The assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK:

The sixteen public interest factors in favour of prosecution are:

* The victim was under 18 years of age.
* The victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide.
* The victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
* The victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect.
* The victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative.
* The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.
* The suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim.
* The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance himself or herself.
* The suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication.
* The suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other.
* The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance.
* The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care.
* The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present.
* The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

The six public interest factors against prosecution are:

* The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
* The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
* The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.
* The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.
* The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.
* The suspect reported the victim's suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.

Link to the prosecution guidelines in the UK: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/109_10/

Previous blog comments about the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/assisted-suicide-law-to-be.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-gilderdale-assisted-suicide-case.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/12/alison-davis-legally-challenges.html

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/prosecution-guidelines-in-uk-may-open.html

Kajouji case goes to U.S. prosecutor

Harold Albrecht MP

Lee Greenberg wrote an excellent update on the case of Nadia Kajouji, the Carlton University student who died by suicide in March 2008 after being counselled via the internet by an internet suicide predator.

The case of Nadia Kajouji has captured the concerns of her family, friends, university students and even Harold Albrecht, a Member of Parliament, who steered a motion through the Canadian parliament asking the Canadian government to clarify why Kajouji was not charged under section 241 (assisted suicide act) of Canada's criminal code.

The article states that:

Minnesota police have handed prosecutors their case against William Melchert-Dinkel, a 47-year-old father and former nurse who tried to talk a Carleton student into hanging herself in front of a webcam while he watched.

Sgt. Paul Schnell, a spokesman for the St. Paul police department said that after nearly a year, the case has been submitted to their county prosecutor for a decision on charges.

Nadia Kajouji

The difficulty in prosecuting the Kajouji case is as Sgt. Schnell stated:

“It’s an unusual case,”

“There’s certainly been a range of issues. Part of this is forensic, part of this is assessing as many victims as possible, part of it is looking at jurisdictional issues and where this case is best charged.”

The article explains the Kajouji case as follows:

Police first identified Melchert-Dinkel last February as the man behind a series of disturbing online chats with Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old Carleton University student.

Police said the two met in an online suicide chat room, where Melchert-Dinkel was posing as a 20-something woman who, like Kajouji, was in the depths of depression.

They quickly formed a suicide pact, with Melchert-Dinkel playing the role of leader.

Through several chat sessions ­ transcripts of which were released by police and obtained by the Citizen ­ Melchert-Dinkel attempted to persuade Kajouji to hang herself while he watched.

Throughout the chat, he tried to ease her guilt and countered her ambivalence ­ all while offering hands-on advice.

He told her what type of store to go to to buy rope, and what length and diameter of rope would work best.

In the chat, he also counselled Kajouji to examine her apartment to find the best place from which to hang herself, adding that he could help with the camera placement at that time.

Kajouji did commit suicide in March 2008, when she jumped off a bridge into the Rideau River. Her body was not discovered for more than five weeks.

The Kajouji case has led to other questions:

Kajouji’s case first ignited a controversy over the role of university administrators and health officials, who knew about the young woman’s deteriorating mental health, but declined to tell her parents.

A second controversy still surrounds the decision by Ottawa police not to charge Melchert-Dinkel under Canada’s assisted suicide law, which is similar to Minnesota’s

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urged the Ottawa police to charge Melchert-Dinkel. Canada has extradition laws with the United States that would have allowed us to bring him to trial in Canada.

The article explains that there are more victims of Melchert-Dinkel:

Meanwhile, it appears what Schnell called an “exhaustive search” by U.S. law enforcement has netted more possible victims than originally suspected.

Schnell said before releasing the latest development to the public, police had been in touch with victim families in Canada, the United States and Britain.

Melchert-Dinkel was reportedly also under investigation in the suicide of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005.

Deborah Chevalier

Kajouji's mother has been consistently pushing for action on this case. The article stated:

Kajouji’s mother said Minnesota investigators called her Wednesday to let her know the case had been handed over to prosecutors.

“It’s definitely positive,” said Deborah Chevalier. “But this really hasn’t changed anything except I know it’s moving forward. I want to see the charges laid and have him have his day in court.”

It is now up to Paul Beaumaster to decide whether or not to prosecute:

It will now be up to Rice County attorney Paul Beaumaster to decide whether to proceed with charges under Minnesota’s assisted suicide statute, a rarely used piece of legislation that provides penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment or as much as $30,000 in fines for anyone who “intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other’s own life.”

William Melchert-Dinkel

Melchert-Dinkel reacted to the charges:

Following his unusual public outing by police last February, when he was identified as the man behind the chats (but not charged), Melchert-Dinkel was stripped of his nursing license. He practiced as a Minnesota nurse for more than 15 years.

Lawyers at that hearing showed Melchert-Dinkel checked himself into hospital in January 2009, complaining of being “addicted” to suicide chat rooms.

“4 yrs suicide fetish offered medical advice for assisted suicide x2,” a hospital intake document states. “Posed as 28 yo female formed suicide pacts with some that he had no attention [sic] of following thru ­ wanted to be caretaker or nurturer ­ feels worthless, guilty.”

Hospital notes say he complained of “feeling guilty because of past and present advice to those on the Internet of how to end their lives.”

Over that time, he accumulated a disturbing disciplinary record for, among other things, beating, yelling and swearing at patients.

In one particularly haunting episode ­ one of literally dozens cited in his public disciplinary history ­ Melchert-Dinkel watched silently as a patient at a nursing home died.

“Licensee failed to document the residents condition or update physician as instructed,” the record states. “Resident MD’s condition continued to decline during the shift and Resident subsequently died en route to the hospital.”

Melchert-Dinkel has been diagnosed with adult learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and adjustment reaction with anxiety, according to his nursing file.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that the law does not adequately protect vulnerable depressed people, like Nadia Kajouji, from predators like William Melchert-Dinkel. We have been asking that parliament change the assisted suicide law to specifically focus on charging people like Melchert-Dinkel.

Link to the article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Kajouji+case+goes+prosecutor/2613562/story.html

Assisted suicide: law to be decriminalised 'by back door' from next week?

Martin Beckworth and Heidi Blake were published yesterday in the Telegraph paper in the UK suggesting that the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines that will be published next week by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will effectively decriminalised assisted suicide by the back door.

Previous blog comments about the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/peter-saunders-asks-dpp-guidelines-due.html

Alison Davis challenges assisted suicide prosecution guidelines: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/12/alison-davis-legally-challenges.html

The article predicts that the Final rules set out by the Crown Prosecution Service will make it clear that those who are directly and intentionally involved with causing the death of a family member, etc are unlikely to face court if they "acted out of compassion." yet the "factors against prosecution are likely to be altered from existing draft guidance, after it was claimed that they would leave the most vulnerable members of society at greater risk while providing immunity to spouses regardless of their motives."

Link to the previous blog comment: Prosecution guidelines may open the door to assisted suicide: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/prosecution-guidelines-in-uk-may-open.html

The concept that someone is acting "out of compassion" is vague and misleading. We need to remember that everyone needs to be concerned about the suffering of persons, but to suggest that it is compassionate to allow a person to be involved with killing a person is false, misleading and dangerous.

According to the article, the same concern was stated by The All Party Parliamentary Group on Dying Well which said the guidelines “could have the unintended effect of leading potential law-breakers to believe they will secure immunity from prosecution if they assist suicides in certain prescribed ways or circumstances”.

If the article is correct I would share the concerns brought forward by Legal experts that said:

"this unprecedented step “in effect decriminalises” an offence on the statute book and in so doing “infringes the supremacy of Parliament”."

When prosecution guidelines don't interpret the law, but change the law, then we need to become concerned about the nature of our democratic institutions and the effects this has on other moral concerns.

The article does indicate that Starmer listened to the disability community. The article stated:

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, who was born with spinal muscular atrophy, told the DPP that this factor would be considered discrimination on the grounds of disability.

On behalf of a campaign group called Not Dead Yet, she wrote: “This ‘understanding’ of a disabled or terminally ill person’s wish to die is deeply demeaning to other disabled people and sends out entirely the wrong message to those newly disabled or diagnosed with a terminal illness.”

The article also predicts that the guidelines will not simply exonerate spouses. It stated:

"respondents said it was “naïve” to assume their motives in helping their husband or wife die were honest, and were not influenced by money or the desire to free themselves from caring responsibilities."

It is interesting to note that:

"The Royal College of Physicians has demanded that doctors are specifically included in the list of professionals whose involvement in an assisted suicide would increase the likelihood of prosecution, amid fears that the draft rules could open the door to allowing euthanasia."

If Starmer publishes assisted suicide prosecution guidelines that defacto legalise assisted suicide, then those guidelines will need to be legally challenged or parliament will need to intervene, even if the primary reason for challenging the guidelines is to protect our democratic institutions.

Link to the article in the Telegraph paper in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7271843/Assisted-suicide-law-to-be-decriminalised-by-back-door-from-next-week.html

Legalizing euthanasia - There will be casualties

This article was written by Michael Cook and published on Mercator.net. Everyone needs to read this article. The Article: Euthanasia activists in Australia, the UK and the Netherlands have lost touch with reality was published on February 19, 2010.

By Michael Cook, February 19, 2010

Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke loves publicity. But whenever he opens his mouth, even the most progressive journalists avert their eyes in squeamish embarrassment. This week’s gaffe was to defend his barely legal promotion of a suicide drug for the elderly and terminally ill. It turns out that nearly two-thirds of the Australians who died after quaffing Nembutal – at least 51 over the past 10 years -- were under 60, and quite a few were in the 20s and 30s. This suggests that mental illness or depression, not unbearable pain, was the reason for the suicide. So how did Nitschke respond?

"There will be some casualties," he said with the tenderness of General Haig sending troops over the top at the Somme, "but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well-being from having access to this information," [about suicide drugs].

The notion that young people are just collateral damage in a war to defend their grandparents’ inalienable right to make a quick getaway outraged many Australians. There were calls for Dr Nitschke to be hauled into a court for putting lives at risk.

But after tracking the increasingly outrageous suggestions from advocates for assisted suicide and euthanasia, I feel that jail is not the place for people like Nitschke. They belong in a straitjacket. It is becoming increasingly clear that euthanasia advocacy is an illness characterised by an unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s actions, an inability to empathise with normal people, and a morbid desire to help others die. Like mad cow disease, it lies dormant for years. Its victims look normal, but eventually the spongy degeneration of the brain becomes evident.

Philip Nitschke

Nitschke is a classical case. An intelligent man with a PhD in physics and a qualified doctor, he entered the public debate by decrying the cruelty of forcing the terminally ill to die in excruciating pain. Autonomous adults should have the right to die at a time and place of their choosing, surrounded by their loved one, he argued. It sounded vaguely plausible to the media and to his doddering but increasingly numerous groupies, it was a new gospel. But bit by bit, it became clear that his goal was death-on-demand, even for troubled teenagers. He seems incapable of grasping that most of us want teenagers to stick around for a few more years rather than kill themselves over a cruel Facebook post.

In England, the latest case of euthanasia madness is a 70-year-old veteran BBC broadcaster and gay rights campaigner, Ray Gosling. He confessed in the middle of a TV show that he had smothered an unnamed gay lover suffering from AIDS some 20 years ago.

"In a hospital one hot afternoon, the doctor said 'There's nothing we can do', and he was in terrible, terrible pain. I said to the doctor 'Leave me just for a bit' and he went away. I picked up the pillow and smothered him until he was dead. The doctor came back and I said 'He's gone'. Nothing more was ever said."

Mr Gosling sobbed a bit, but was adamant that killing someone and concealing the murder was the right thing. "If there's a heaven and he's looking down, he'd be proud of me," he told the BBC. He was oblivious to all the safeguards promised by euthanasia advocates. A right to smother someone, anywhere, anytime, without consulting doctors, without notifying the police, without proving your disinterestedness, and without even consulting the victim raises questions in most sane minds about the possibility of widespread collateral damage. Perhaps only BBC journalists would be allowed to do mercy killings, but some sane people might even object to that.

In the Netherlands euthanasia loopiness has become epidemic. It is legal there and every year about 2,500 acknowledged cases of doctor-administered death take place.

But amongst the numerous Dutch victims of spongy-brained euthanasia syndrome some are more affected than others. Recently a distinguished group called "Out of Free Will" has complained that there are too many restrictions on euthanasia in the Netherlands. Even in the mercy-killing heartland, people are required to have some sort of terminal illness. But the new lobby group wants the right for to anyone sane over the age of 70 to die with a professionally-trained expert’s assistance. They have already begun collecting signatures to lobby for improvements to the legislation.

Part of their scheme is a completely new profession: specialist suicide assistants. These people will need to pass a "Completed Life" training program and to join a professional association which will maintain standards of professional, transparent and safe conduct.

The age limit of 70 is arbitrary. “Whether it should be 65 or 90 is a good question,” says legal scholar Eugene Sutorius. “We think that once someone has reached old age, he has proved abilities at living. He can then choose to leave this life in a procedural, medicalised manner.”

Eugene Sutorius

Three spokesmen told the NRC Handelsblad that collateral damage by "angels of death" in nursing homes – rogue doctors and nurses who enjoy killing people -- was unlikely to be a problem, especially in view of the country’s positive experience with euthanasia. "It was thought to be the first step on a slippery slope that would lead the medical profession to lose its integrity," says Mr Sutorius. "But I have seen nothing of the kind happen."

That last sentence is a tell-tale symptom of spongy-brain euthanasia disease. Before euthanasia was legalised, Dutch doctors were already doing it enthusiastically. It was legalised for consenting adults in pain from a terminal condition, and now it is permitted for non-consenting infants. Dutch doctors routinely lie on their official reports. If they are squeamish about lethal injections, they kill patients through the lingering death of terminal sedation – which is not counted as euthanasia. All these facts are well known. Yet Mr Sutorius sees no slippery slope, no loss of medical integrity. Mr Sutorius belongs in a straitjacket, not in a comfy chair giving interviews. (If you speak Dutch, he explains his position here in a YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvQRFZVCiIc)

What is happening here? How can intelligent, well-educated people be so obtuse about the dangers of legalising the killing of innocent, infirm human beings? Perhaps the conviction that some killing is permissible is so morally corrupting that it infects the intellect and distorts reality. And arguing with them is futile. As Chesterton wrote:

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgement. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. Link to the article.

Baby Isaiah will remain on ventilator until at least March 11

Justice Michelle Crighton has decided that Baby Isaiah will remain on the ventilator until at least March 11 to provide time for Dr Richard Taylor from Victoria BC to examine Isaiah.

Baby Isaiah was born last October after a 40 hour labour with the umbilical cord around his neck. He experienced oxygen deprivation and the doctors stated that he was brain dead. Baby Isaiah has physically thrived and is trying to breath on his own. He is likely to be significantly cognitively disabled, but he is not brain dead and he is not dying.

Isaac and Rebecca May have been searching for a paediatric neurologist to examine Baby Isaiah.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes the withdrawal of the ventilator from Baby Isaiah May because the ventilator is beneficial for the child, the child is thriving, and the legal precedents that may be set by removing the ventilator from a child who is not brain dead and who's parents wish the care to continue.

A precedent that allows the removal of the ventilator from a person who is benefiting from its use, not dying and not brain dead, and against the wishes of the person or the family could allow the courts to end treatment for people with dementia or Alzheimer disease.

We also oppose futile care theory that has changed in the last few years from mandating that futile treatment be stopped to establishing which patients are considered futile and mandating that treatment be stopped.

Link to article about Baby Isaiah:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/thewest/Baby+Isaiah+parents+await+results+assessment/2587211/story.html

Hoarding Death Drugs

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Australian news.com reported Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr. Death, to have stated that approximately 300 people have hoarded a lethal drug that they have obtained from veterinary clinics and through mail orders.

Philip Nitschke

The article proves that Nitschke has an irresponsible attitude towards people who are living with depression or others including troubled teens who are thinking of suicide but really crying out for help.

Nitscke stated to the Australian news.com that:

"About 250 to 300 people have accessed the drug over the past decade, mostly in the past five years,"

"They're people who are generally not unwell, but might have seen someone unwell and don't want it to happen to them."

The article continues by stating that:

According to a report published this week by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, 50 Australians, some in their 20s and 30s, have used Nembutal to commit suicide.

The report used data from the National Coroners Information System and of the 38 cases fully investigated by coroners, only 11 involved chronic physical pain or a terminal illness.

Nitschke, the founder of Exit International stated:

That the number reported by the institute is closer to 125.

He said that Exit occasionally provided information to people in their 20s on how to obtain the drug from Mexico.

In a National Review article written by Kathryn Lopez in 2001, Lopez prints an interview with Nitschke who supports anyone dying by lethal overdose, even troubled teens. Nitscke stated:

My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, and then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want….  

I do not believe that telling people they have a right to life while denying them the means, manner, or information necessary for them to give this life away has any ethical consistency. So all people qualify, not just those with the training, knowledge, or resources to find out how to 'give away' their life. And someone needs to provide this knowledge, training, or resource necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen. If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of subgroups that don't meet our criteria.

Nitschke has consistently promoted suicide as an answer to the problems that people experience. At the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto (2006) he stated that someone who is "Tired of Living" should simply be given a lethal overdose. This is a very callous way to view human life.

Is the person "Tired of Living" simply because we have made them feel like their life is not worth living. Society can abandon people to suicide or society can value all of its citizens, whether they are people with disabilities, elderly and lonely, or a troubled teen who needs support at a difficult time of life. 

Kathryn Lopez's 2001 interview with Nitschke: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory060501.shtml

Link to my previous blog comment about Nitschke's promotion of Nembutal: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/03/suicide-by-mail.html